Talk:Irreversible Damage/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Zucker quote and related conduct

Two things.

1. First and more importantly: There's a bunch of quotes which are included on (and only on) promotional pages for the book. These come mostly from the people you might expect for a book of this sort: Prager, Zucker, Blanchard, Shapiro, JMB, etc. We need to decide whether they should be included in the article. To me, this material seems pretty clearly ineligible for inclusion, on both neutrality and due weight grounds. As far as I can tell, Zucker's support of the book hasn't been covered by a single source (reliable or not) except for the cover and promotional material of the book itself. The quote shouldn't be included at all, and if it is, it certainly shouldn't be included verbatim. Right now Zucker's support for the book is taking up 20% of the reception section. That is completely inappropriate.

2. Pengortm, this edit summary, in which you accuse Bilorv of tendentious editing (even though you couch it with appears), is counterproductive and will only escalate tensions over this article. Let's assume good faith here. Srey Sros^talk 20:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I have the page watchlisted but I don't always check every edit, so I don't necessarily see all the bad content. Pengortm's edit summary is a reason to take out the trash (i.e. remove all the "Reception" from people with clear professional conflicts of interest), not add some trash back for consistency. Can someone actually tell me what content other than the Zucker stuff is by people profiled in the book? There's Turner, an egregiously bad thing to cite which I argued for removal of in the discussion above. But I'm not seeing quotes from people like Prager and Shapiro in the article at the moment (and I've no idea why I would—neither of them have a medical degree right? Rules them out as self-published sources). — Bilorv (talk) 21:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I think I wasn't clear above. I was describing the sort of promotional quotes that accompany the book to make a point about the undue weight lent to the statement by Zucker (We would all, I imagine, consider it undue to dedicate a paragraph to Prager's or Shapiro's praise of the book). Quotes from Prager or Shapiro have, to my knowledge, never been included in the article. It's been a minute since I've read through the book but I believe that Turner is the only other person mentioned in the book who appears in this article. Srey Sros^talk 21:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I now see your perspective, but Pengortm says there are other people profiled in the book who are included in this article. And it would be odd to call somebody's editing "tendentious" for maintaining a consistent position on two instances of unusable content, so there must be more. — Bilorv (talk) 00:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah, there was one person I missed. It seems Chase Ross, another prominent trans social media personality, was interviewed in the book and is also included in the article. Pengortm, is this what you were referring to in your edit summary? Srey Sros^talk 01:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I believe those were the two. I generally agree that book blurbs are not the best sources to include. However, given Zucker's prominence in the relevant field and how few people with actual relevant expertise, their opinion seems particularly important. -Pengortm (talk) 00:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

You mean that their view seems particularly important because their FRINGE view agrees with that of the book's author? That's an interesting interpretation of WP:BALANCE. Newimpartial (talk) 01:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

On the unnecessary tagging of a publisher as "conservative"

Tagging the publishing firm "Regnery Publishing" as "conservative" is a poorly veiled attempt at casting a shadow over its objectivity, hence not a remark made in good faith. It is, in effect, a value judgment sneakily cloaked as "objective" information. As such, it violates the good-faith postulate. Not to mention that liberal publishing houses and agents in general never get tagged as "liberal" on Wikipedia: it is always the conservative agents that get so "highlighted."

And why would "conservatism" have anything to do with publishing a book like "Irreversible Damage"? This point is far from obvious, and needs considerable arguing for. It is more than obvious that whoever slipped the "conservative" attribute in is hoping to make a more-or-less subconscious (and illegitimate) connection between "conservatism" and the content of the book: the implication is that no non-"conservative" publisher would publish this book.

The bottom line is that whoever wants to learn what political bent "Regnery Publishing" has should feel free to inspect the corresponding article. --Aqualung (talk) 19:11, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

It seems to me that the connections between the content of the book and the political inclinations of its publisher are text here, rather than subtext, so the question would be why to exclude the information. Newimpartial (talk) 19:41, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

It seems odd to say that Tagging the publishing firm 'Regnery Publishing' as 'conservative' is a poorly veiled attempt at casting a shadow over its objectivity when a Google search for "Regnery Publishing" turns up their website: "Regnery Publishing: Conservative Books for Independent Thinkers. Regnery Publishing is America's leading publisher of conservative books for over 70 years." They seem awfully willing to "cast a shadow" over themselves, if that's what the "conservative" descriptor is doing.

Regarding the comment that Not to mention that liberal publishing houses and agents in general never get tagged as "liberal" on Wikipedia: it is always the conservative agents that get so "highlighted.": If we ignore for a minute that this is a WP:OTHERCONTENT argument, we can briefly and easily disprove it: Jesse Sharkey mentions "leftist publisher Haymarket Books". Labour Briefing mentions "Central Books, a left-wing publisher". Joint Committee Against Communism mentions "People's Songs, a left-wing publisher".

What it does need is a source, but given that a lot of sources mentioning Irreversible Damage's publisher also see fit to mention that it is a conservative publishing house, that won't be a problem, and I'll do so after I save this comment. It is worth mentioning that even right-leaning sources mention Regnery's slant: Fox News, Christian Post. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith. I believe it was I who originally added that text (I could've sworn that I sourced it but I guess I didn't), and I can assure you my intention was not to make any such implication. Regnery Publishing is a politically conservative book publisher (it's their whole shtick; see some of their other books as well as the sources discussing them on the main Regnery article), and that information seems like important context about the book's publication. There is no inherent value judgement in the term "conservative".

Regarding the implication is that no non-"conservative" publisher would publish this book: You can make whatever assumptions you like about why Shrier chose to publish through Regnery or why they chose to fund the book, but those are assumptions are no grounds to remove information from the article. The only reasonable argument I see against inclusion of the characterization would be that it places undue weight on the publisher's political affiliations and biases, but I don't think that holds water. It's one word in a fairly large article; it seems a reasonable amount of weight to me. Srey Sros^talk 20:11, 8 March 2021 (UTC) (edit conflict × 3)

Lead wording (again)

All right, here we go again. The SPA KoenigHall twice inserted the following as the second sentence of the lead in this diff and this diff: In the book Shrier explores the relationship of the recet rapid rise of adolescent onset gender dysphoria to mental health struggles of adolescent deveopment. They used the following edit summary as justification: "Changed the previous unjustifed implied focus of the book as promoting a novel medical diagnosis to a more neutral and accurate "one line" summary, while not removing the previous derogatory phrase." This whitewashes the focus of the book and ignores the expert sourcing we have about its content. The book gives medical advice, and per WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS we need to be very careful to describe the book the way it is described in MEDRS. Additionally, the wording of the lead has been discussed time and time again on this very talk page, and the current wording is the result of those discussions. Srey Sros^talk 21:36, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

The expression "whitewashes" reveals the bias of the summary in the lead. The evaluation of the book should not be conflated with the summary of the book in the lead. After stating who wrote the book, it is clear there is a need to state what the book is about. That the author also supports the terminology (not anywhere referenced as a medical diagnosis) of ROGD is not a reason to neglect summarizing what the book is about. Also, since the sentence describing the controversy immediarely follows that sentence, it is not correct that the preceding sentence now whitewashes the book and does not in any way change the status of cautioning that is referred to as required by WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS. The reason for NOT including a valid summary of the book content was not justified. KoenigHall (talk) 22:06, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@KoenigHall: As Ezlev said in their edit summary, as the editor requesting inclusion of disputed content, the onus is on you to get consensus for its inclusion. You currently do not have this consensus. You are correct that we ought to describe the book's content, but crucially, we need to describe it the way the reliable sources do. The sentence you're inserting gives undue weight to Shrier's and Regnery's description of the book, and has now been objected to by two editors. Please establish consensus before continuing to revert. Srey Sros^talk 23:05, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

KoenigHall needs to stop edit-warring to keep their BOLD additions to the lede. Also, the word "phenomena" is plural. Newimpartial (talk) 23:09, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

KoenigHall, the expression "whitewashes" reveals nothing of the sort. Your purported relationship of the recent rapid rise of adolescent onset gender dysphoria to mental health struggles of adolescent deveopment and the article's existing phrasing about the unrecognized and contentious medical phenomenon of rapid onset gender dysphoria are one and the same. The difference, and this is likely what SreySros described as whitewashing, is that your phrasing presents this relationship as a fact and implies that adolescent gender dysphoria is correlated with or even caused by mental health struggles. That is a fringe theory and should not be presented in wikivoice. Now that I've explained this, I'm going to make my second and final revert of these changes (struck since Newimpartial made a revert) and ask that you seriously consider engaging in this discussion rather than reinstating your edit. You've been made aware of the discretionary sanctions in this subject area - please be mindful of WP:Edit warring. warmly, ezlev. talk 23:11, 13 March 2021 (UTC) (edit conflict × 2)

@User:SreySros and User:Ezlev, As far as consenus and reliable sources are concerned, please note that there is no consensus to not include the description I offered. On the contrary, this edit must be judged the consensus since a good source for my edit is the Wikipedia "Summary" of the book itself; a summary that follows immediately after the index. My edit is nothing but a "one liner" summary of the first paragraph of the Wikipedia description. It therefore is up to others to justify why these two sentences (my edit + the original) disagrees with the Wikipedia content itself.KoenigHall (talk) 10:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

That isn't the way CONSENSUS works. Newimpartial (talk) 13:51, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Please adress the central claim that the edit that you reversed or discredt is only a summary of the content of the first paragraph of the summary that has been accepted already for along time and therefore represents a consensus description of the book content, or explain why it doesn't. KoenigHall (talk) 18:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Per MOS:LEAD, the purpose of the lead is to provide the key points of the article, not to provide a summary of a summary (in this case, a summary of the book's content). My sense is that there is a good deal more encyclopaedic interest in the author's controversial argument then there is in a bland summary of the book's content. If you would like to engender a consensus in favor of the inclusion of your summary summary in the lead, the place to do so is here. Newimpartial (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)`

KoenigHall, as I mentioned in my edit summary when I first reverted your edit, the WP:ONUS is on you to gain consensus for your addition. It is not up to others to justify why your edit should not be included, it's up to you to justify why it should.

With that being said, at this point multiple editors have laid out their reasoning against your change to the lede. I'm going to try to summarize below for you:

• Per SreySros, the book gives medical advice, so we need to describe that advice the way it is described in medically reliable sources.
• Also per SreySros, there is established consensus for the current lede wording (see older discussions on this talk page), which makes it even more necessary to gain consensus for new changes. See WP:CONACHIEVE.
• Per me, your edit is redundant with the existing sentence that describes the book and summarizes the first paragraph of the summary, except that your edit presents a WP:FRINGE theory as a credible fact. That is a violation of the core neutral point of view policy.
• Per Newimpartial, the lede should provide the key points from the article, and the contentiousness of Shrier's hypothesis is more of a key point than the hypothesis itself.

--warmly, ezlev. talk 18:46, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Newimpartial ("...not to provide a summary of a summary...". Point taken. Please noe that the book's discussion of the co-occurence of mental health issues with adolescent onset GD is a main key point in the book that in my opinionshoudl therefore be in the lead. That this is not evident is clear from Ezlev's comment "...your phrasing presents this relationship as a fact and implies that adolescent gender dysphoria is correlated with ... mental health struggles.." . (Note that this correlation is now no longer a minority view, it has been promoted by the main inventors of the study behind "The Dutch protocol", Annelou de Vries, in Pediatrics sept 2020, and by her colleague Thomas Steensma, in writing as late as last week. Also, this is the judgement of both the Swedish National Board of Health in their Government comissioned systematic review and subsequent new guidelines for treatment now out on hearing, as well as the Finnish new Gudelines (june 2020). Simlar concusions have been reached by the Norwegian Publci Health authority and by teh British National Health Service wh are now therefore reviewing the evidence base for treatments (led by Hilary Cass). For a peer reviewed source see Kaltiala-Heino, Riittakerttu, Hannah Bergman, Marja Työläjärvi, and Louise Frisen. “Gender Dysphoria in Adolescence: Current Perspectives.” Adolescent Health, Medicine and Therapeutics Volume 9 (March 2018): 31–41. My view of ROGD is "neutral", this is a question of what is "rapid" but the key point as I see it is teh adloescent onset and co-occurences ofmental health issues and the risky treatment with treatments that don't take account of this. I don't think it is reasonable to have the "key point" being ROGD (although I am neutral about this non-medical terminology) and ignore the main key point of adolescent onset. KoenigHall (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Just a simple overall comment - even if the Netherlands and all the Nordic counties agreed about the co-occurrences of mental health issues, that would still be a minority view in the context of the much larger community of English-language practitioners. Also, it is for reliable secondary sources - not editors, and not the primary source - to decide whether ROGD or adolescent onset is the main key point. Newimpartial (talk) 19:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Newimpartial The key points are clear from the "Summary", there is an inconsistency as it stands: The summary starts off with "Shrier states.....adolescent-onset..." and then continues with "She describes....mental health issues". Thus, the edit I introduced as missing in the lead are the first key points raised in the Summary. The later key points are included in the Lead, but the premise and setting of the later argument, the (see summary) "She then discusses Lisa Littman's..." point in the summary is highighted as the key point in the book. It may be a key point to some editors, but tt is inconsistent also to demand a secondary source for the primary key points explicit in the summary where no such secondary source is referenced for the other Key points.

Also, note that the science evidence of the high co-occurrence of mental health issues has been published in peer reviewed English Journals, I only cited these that are reasonably "secondary source" results of reviews, but there are plenty also with American UK and Australian Origin, for example the US Transgender survey 2015 (you surely know) has been analyzed by Turban and others reaching the conclusion of very high co-occurrence of mental health issues, the UCLA Survey of college students reached similar conclusions (about 75-80% co-occurrence), and as recently as February 2021, an Australian study (Kozlovska et al. Front. Psychol.) reports 88% co-occurrence.

These high co-occurrences have not been contested (at least not in peer reviewed journals) and are certainly not a minority víew of Nordic European countries. Our disagreement, as I see it, is that a primary key point raised in the book, as outlined in the Summary, is missing in the leadKoenigHall (talk) 22:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

KoenigHall, here is the beginning of the lede from the article Rapid onset gender dysphoria controversy, which is linked in the existing lede of this article: Rapid onset gender dysphoria (ROGD) is a controversial proposed socially mediated subtype of gender dysphoria. Brown University School of Public Health assistant professor Lisa Littman created the term to describe surveyed parents' accounts of their teenage children suddenly manifesting symptoms of gender dysphoria and self-identifying as transgender simultaneously with other children in their peer group. Littman speculated that rapid onset of gender dysphoria could be a "social coping mechanism" for other disorders. Your addition basically rephrases that definition without associating Shrier's work with the concept of ROGD - but both Shrier herself and reliable secondary sources do connect this book with that concept, and so Wikipedia should as well. The current lede accomplishes that.

One other significant issue is that your proposed addition and the sources you've cited address correlation between adolescent gender dysphoria and mental health issues, while my understanding is that both the ROGD concept and Shrier's work assume or imply that adolescent gender dysphoria is caused by mental health issues. That's a pretty major difference, no? --warmly, ezlev. talk 22:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC), edited 00:37, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

E/c KoenigHall First of all, the place to discuss whether or not the Rapid onset gender dysphoria diagnosis is FRINGE or not is at that article page, not here. The only scientific literature relevant for discussion here is that cited in Irreversible damage - which, as far as I know, does not include any of the articles you just mentioned - and the literature mentioned in the secondary sources on Irreversible damage, which also does not include any of those articles as far as I am aware. I find it a bit bizarre that you mention Turban in this context, since he does not make the connection between his own findings and those of Shrier that you assert; in fact, his reception of the book is much less sympathetic.

As far as your other point is concerned, there is absolutely no reason that the "Summary" section of this article should be organized the same way as the lead, or that the key point mentioned in the lead should be the first point of the "Summary". While it is acceptable for the summary to be organized in various ways, including a reconstruction of the argument as presented in the book, the lead is subject to much stricter criteria and needs to reflect the WP:BALANCE of the reliable, secondary sources on the book, and not at all what the book itself says. Newimpartial (talk) 22:49, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Ezlev Please note, my comments abut the sources, which included mention of USTS 2015 and Turban, was only to point out that the well-known co-occurrence mentioned is not only a minority Northern European consensus, Whatever Turban or others view of Shriers book is, it is not relevant here and has no bearing on the validity of my comment.

Please note also, I don't engage in discussing the credibility of ROGD, whether if argued as a phenomenon or as a medical diagnosis. My concern is the obfuscation of the book's highlighting important unknowns in adolescent onset GD and the treatments thereof. It has not been justified (still) why there is an omission in the lead of this key element argued in the book - the established co-occurrence of adolescent onset gender dysphoria with mental health issues. The arguments raised against my edit are not consistent/balanced. The argument claiming that I need a secondary source to support that my inclusion is a key element is not consistent with the requirements laid on the other key elements in the lead. It is also inconsistent that it has been judged a key element in the summary but is excluded in the lead. The lead, as it stands, is in blatant discord with WP:BALANCE and needs correction.KoenigHall (talk) 10:51, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Re: It has not been justified (still) why there is an omission in the lead of this key element argued in the book - no, you haven't established that this is a key element, and to do so you would have to provide reliable sources about the book that make this point. So far, you have offered none. If there are other elements of the lede that are not based on a balanced assessment of the RS cited in the body, please point those out, but in any case OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid content argument on WP. Newimpartial (talk) 11:57, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

talk Inclusion of my edit significantly changes understanding of the value of the book.. I can obnly conclude that this is what causes the resistance to including it.

Again, the lead is in conflict with WP:BALANCE since the inclusion I made is, at least, on an equal footing as a Key point to the other Key points in the lead; none have a second source to make them more valid as key points and the key point I insist on is a major point in the summary. It is up to those who reverse my edit to explain why this key point needs a source that is not required of the other key points. This principle of equal terms is inherent in the safeguarding provided by WP:BALANCE. The burden of proof falls on those who filter information in the lead that skews the balance away from that of the summary. KoenigHall (talk) 20:25, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think you understand how WP:ONUS or WP:CONSENSUS, or for that matter WP:BALANCE, work on WP. Newimpartial (talk) 20:32, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

KoenigHall, this is your second time in a few months attempting major changes to the lede of this article. The first time you attempted to remove the thoroughly sourced characterization of ROGD as "unproven," and this time your edit would (by your own admission) use Wikipedia as a platform to significantly change understanding of the value of the book. Both of these attempts went against Wikipedia policies and guidelines, as has now been explained to you by multiple editors, and both of them are also at odds with the established consensus. Consensus can change, but it hasn't, and in fact you've been presented with a variety of reasons why this change to the lede should not be made. I'm happy to make another attempt to summarize these reasons if it will be helpful to you, but in any case I think it's past time to listen rather than stonewalling. ezlev.^talk 21:28, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Ezlev Please don't make this more confusing by including a discussion of the ROGD consensus. I note that you redirect the question again to one of consensus, evading my implicit query when pointing out that that the reversal of my edit has as a consequence an unbalanced presentation in the lead, without adressing my objection and the evidence. The evidence is in the Summary which is aligned with my edit. Please clarify why my judgement that this is in contradiction to WP:BALANCE is mistaken..KoenigHall (talk) 21:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:BALANCE applies to the relationship between WP article text (including the lede) and reliable sources; it does not in any way apply to the relationship among article sections. Where are the sources supporting your supposed key point, besides the non-independent, primary source? Newimpartial (talk) 22:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Newimpartial ( & Ezlev User:SreySros) The lack of neutral view point and violation of balance is clear from your directing your question/objection only to my viewpoint and not to that of the altwernative, i.e. your query: "Where are the sources supporting your supposed key point ?". This lack of external source (besides the consensus summary) what is a valid "Key point" of the book applies to all the Key points that are currently in the lead. This lack of symmetry in requirements is in clear violation of seeking a neutral viewpoint. The content of the book is accentuated in the summary and excluding mention of Shriers main focus of discussion of the co-occurrence of adolescent onset of GD with a high prevalence of mental health issues as an essential Key point in the book constitutes an imbalance in presentation of the content of the book.

None of the editors have addressed the claim that, as judged from the summary, the current lead is an unbalanced presentation of the key points of the book content. There has been no explanation of why, as judged from the summary, there is an omission in the lead of this Key point. Including this key point would present a more accurate and neutral description of what the book is about, as evidenced in the consensus summary. Excluding this Key point on the grounds that it needs a second source to claim that it is a key point whilst including the other key points without requiring a second source which supports that they are more prominent key points of the book (which of course they are not), and in view of that there is such indiccaation in the summary, on the contrary the summary puts emphasis on this content of the book, is a clear violation of neutrality and balance. KoenigHall (talk) 08:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

KoenigHall, there actually has been discussion of all of that, you've just chosen not to engage in it. SreySros has explained that we need to describe the book the way reliable sources do, and that your addition (intentionally or unintentionally) gives undue weight to the self-description of the book by the author and publisher rather than the way reliable independent sources describe it. I've stated that your edit was redundant and presented a minority view as fact. I've also pointed out that your proposed addition and the sources you've cited address correlation between adolescent gender dysphoria and mental health issues, while my understanding is that both the ROGD concept and Shrier's work assume or imply that adolescent gender dysphoria is caused by mental health issues, which is a pretty major issue that you haven't addressed. More points have been made as well, but I don't want to retype them all here.

Perhaps most importantly, it's now been repeatedly pointed out by multiple editors that the responsibility to establish consensus for your new edit falls on you. You've been asked to provide sources for your description of the book and have not done so. You are stonewalling by continuing to repeat the same argument. Please listen. ezlev.^talk 18:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)n

ezlev.^talk I judge a number of your objections as irrelevant to the question of validity of the Key point I claim is missing in the lead, and repeating those irrelevant (in my opinion) arguments is not useful. I have noted you insist they are relevant. I have not addressed them since they are not relevant to the question at hand, as are other objections above, which I addressed in good faith although they too were not relevant (e.g. the validity Shirer's claim of a high co-occurrence of mental health issues with adolescent onset GD. Whether her claim is valid or not is not relevant, this is the Point she is making in the book, but in good, faith I responded to the queries, with numerous references).

The questions which you and others have brought repeatedly that I don't find relevant (and there is no need to repeat them) include:

Your analysis and conclusions of the implications of Shrier's text (correlation, causation, whatever). It does not belong here; there is no such discussion of validity or fallacy relevant here, See the summary, it is not value charged on this.

Obviously you also can not ignore the publishers and Author's view of what the book is about. I have not challenged this and see no need to sidetrack in such discussions.

Finding a consensus for my viewpoint is trivial and I this is not a constructive discussion. It should be obvious to all of us (and will waste time) to have two or more editors revert the "un-reverting" and support my edit. We should settle this on teh facts we know. So I did not engage in that discussion either. I have not bothered discuss your request to demonstrate consensus simply because this will not move things forward.

I note again, that also this latest answer from editor Ezlev evades addressing the essential incongruence that the lead Key points are inconsistent with those that may be clearly derived from the Summary. KoenigHall (talk) 18:41, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

KoenigHall - there is no policy-compliant basis why the article lede should summarize the opening of the "summary" section. If you think there is such a basis, please provide some evidence for that in the form of links or diffs, or else we will all conclude that you are conjuring your supposed principle from whole cloth. (There isn't anything in WP:BALANCE that supports your assertion, either - that policy link addresses an entirely different issue.) Newimpartial (talk) 18:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Newimpartial (talk Please reconsider my claim and yur answer. Your answer adresses a general principle "There is no reason....". My argument is that the validity of my claim can be derived from this specific summary. The summary shows that the Lead is not balanced.KoenigHall (talk) 18:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

You are arguing that the lede (which by policy should reflect the balance of RS commentary on the subject) should reflect the summary (which is only intended to set out the content of the published work under discussion). Please come up with a policy-compliant reason why the lead should reflect the summary, or retract the argument. I see no support for this, for example, in MOS:LEAD, the most prominent of the relevant guidelines. Newimpartial (talk) 19:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

"Gender-affirming care"

This article repeatedly talks about "gender-affirming care" without defining it. What does it mean - supportive counseling? Hormone injections? Surgery? If it's either of the latter two, then the article should specify that (perhaps by linking to transgender hormone therapy or sex reassignment surgery, neither of which is currently linked to from the article), rather than use this confusing euphemism. If it's all three (and maybe more), then the article should be clearer about what specifically the book objects to. I haven't read the book, but I doubt Shrier would classify someone offering a sympathetic ear as "irreversible damage". Korny O'Near (talk) 00:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

"Gender-affirming care" is not a euphemism. It's a commonly-used term in the field of transgender heath ([1]). It can include social transition, therapy without an a priori goal for the gender of the patient (i.e. not conversion therapy), and medical interventions, among other things. Our only MEDRS on the topic uses the term to describe Shrier's argument ([2]), and Shrier herself uses the same language in one of her WSJ op-eds: [3]. Srey Sros^talk 01:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't say she uses the term - she refers to the term "affirmative care", which is similar, but it's in what I would consider scare quotes. Still, it's interesting that other medical professionals use it. But it's confusing for the layman, I would think. Shouldn't it be defined somewhere? Korny O'Near (talk) 02:31, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Our only MEDRS: It's a blog post with no/minimal editorial oversight. (See the Psychology Today website disclaimers, or this debacle.) It's marginally acceptable as an expert WP:SPS, but it definitely isn't WP:MEDRS. gnu57 03:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes. And it would be good to define this term on first occurrence. For many, it is WP:JARGON. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I just added a definition in the intro, linking to those other articles. Hopefully this is an improvement. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:14, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

"Known as"

@Newimpartial: That's a fair point about "known as". What about "... phenomenon that has been called rapid onset gender dysphoria" or something like that? I was thinking something like "that Shrier calls rapid onset gender dysphoria", except I think that might imply she came up with the name. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

"Known as" was introduced here. Previously the lede had "of", which seemed clearer (at least to me) that the alleged phenomenon itself, including the name, was questioned, rather than "there is a phenomenon called ROGD but some people question it". I personally would be ok with "that has been called" except for wordiness; I wonder what other editors think. Newimpartial (talk) 01:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh, "of" is simple and clear enough IMO. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I recognize that it's tricky to talk about a phenomenon, and at the same note that not everyone agrees it exists, all in the same sentence. However, "she attributes this to an unrecognized and contentious phenomenon of ROGD" sounds awkward. (Maybe "the" would have been better than "an".) But I just changed it "she attributes this to ROGD (an unrecognized and contentious diagnosis)", which is hopefully better. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I do like the new version better; I also made a small tweak to the prose. Newimpartial (talk) 16:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I also agree this was an improvement. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

"Shrier works as a journalist and columnist for the Wall Street Journal"

This piece of text appears to be misleading. All of Shrier's pieces I can find in the WSJ are clearly labelled as opinion pieces. In fact I don't seem to be able to find any journalism pieces (i.e. secondary source 'reports on current events based on facts and supported with proof or evidence') anywhere. Should we be using the word journalist to describe her? I'm aware that there are primary sources calling her a journalist and also the Pink News piece, but that looks like it. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

https://www.amazon.com/Abigail-Shrier/e/B083KH37J9 says "a writer for the Wall Street Journal"; that seems appropriate, as she does have quite a few opinion pieces there. --GRuban (talk) 21:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

She's a free lancer with no special connection to the WSJ. I see 5 pieces in WSJ and 5 in The Federalist. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah? https://www.google.com/search?q="by+abigail+shrier"+site:wsj.com gives me quite a few results. Bah, that didn't link properly. Search for "by abigail shrier" site:wsj.com in the search box. -GRuban (talk) 11:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay, somewhere around 20 opinion pieces in WSJ. She's described in her book bio on Amazon as "a writer for the Wall Street Journal" (which is either a publisher description or a self-description) but maintains an account on Muck Rack where she self-describes as a "Writer — Freelance" and lists a whole lot of recent pieces that aren't in WSJ. Some sources seem to describe her as a writer/journalist for the WSJ, but others describe her as a writer/journalist who frequently contributes to the WSJ, or just a writer/journalist. Notably, her own bios on The Federalist and PragerU describe her as a "frequent contributor to the Wall Street Journal" and "a freelance journalist," respectively. My take is that her description as a journalist for the Wall Street Journal is basically advertising copy for the book. Since there's plenty of sourcing for describing her as a "writer" or "freelance journalist", I think we should go with that, and decide whether or not to include the (also well-sourced) fact that she frequently contributes to WSJ. ezlev.^talk 17:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Maybe just cut the sentence in the lead altogether? It's obvious that she's a "writer" given that it's a book with her name on it, and we cover the fact that she's written opinion pieces in the article body. There's the sentence Shrier works as a journalist and columnist for the Wall Street Journal in § Background and publication history as well, which I guess should be changed. Srey Sros^talk 18:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

We can remove it from the lead if you like, but we have the Times saying she is a columnist for the WSJ, which is a highly respected source, so we shouldn't remove it from the body. --GRuban (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Don't you agree that journalist and columnist for the Wall Street Journal is a bit misleading when it is meant to mean "columnist for the WSJ and freelance journalist"? There's a huge difference between being a columnist for the WSJ (that category includes Joseph Epstein, Ryan T. Anderson, even Mike Pence!) and being a journalist for the WSJ (i.e. John Carreyrou). Srey Sros^talk 02:13, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I haven't looked to see what sourced for "journalist" are. If you have and there aren't good ones we can say columnist, which is what the citation for that sentence from the Times says, or writer which her book description says and can include both. --GRuban (talk) 00:26, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

actual gender dysphoria?

The lede currently says that Shrier attributes the spike in trans identification among AFAB teens not to actual gender dysphoria but to social contagion. Is this sourced and accurate? The article gender dysphoria says that according to the APA the critical element of gender dysphoria is "clinically significant distress" and that gender identity likely reflects... environmental, and cultural factors. Does social contagion, which Shrier definitely attributes the spike to, rule out gender dysphoria? Unless there's really good sourcing for the inclusion of the detail/phrase not to actual gender dysphoria but, I think we should remove it, which would make that portion of the lede read She attributes this jump to social contagion among "high-anxiety, depressive (mostly white) girls who, in previous decades, fell prey to anorexia and bulimia or multiple personality disorder". I'm going to go ahead and make this change, but my explanation is here and I'm happy to discuss. ezlev.^talk 19:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

That's a fair point, and Shrier seems to use the phrase "gender dysphoria" to refer to what she might call victims of social contagion as well. I was trying to make it clear with that wording that Shrier does not (contrary to what some of the book's negative reviews say) believe that all transgenderism is fake, but I think that's still clear from the context. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• Sigh. I'll probably weigh in more here at some point. I've got the book, just because of all the hubbub. But I haven't read it yet. GMG^talk 19:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Adolescent teenagers

@Newimpartial: I don't really know where this dispute started, but saying "adolescent teenagers" is pretty poor English. Are we concerned someone will think we're talking about adolescent adults? Seems a bit like saying "bovine cattle" or "equine horses". GMG^talk 18:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the past version was "teenagers", then "adolescent girls", which has since become "adolescent teenagers". I agree "adolescent teenagers" is redundant and we should just go with "teenagers" or "adolescents". We should avoid "girls", since Shrier is specifically describing transgender youths who were AFAB but may not identify as girls. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

That was me, misremembering the status quo ante. (This is why I hate doing partial reverts.) Thanks to SreySros for fixing it. Newimpartial (talk) 19:07, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong. It's fine in spoken word. No one is going to misunderstand. But it's not the best written word. Anyway. Seems fixed. GMG^talk 19:12, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Image copyright

The image for the article seems to be just a screencap from some podcast she did, which I believe would be unacceptable per WP:NFC#UUI. Am I missing something? Srey Sros^talk 18:27, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, NFC doesn't apply as it's free content: the video was released under Creative Commons Attribution. Go to the video page, click MORE, see "License Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)". https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Where_is_the_license_on_various_sites%3F#YouTube --GRuban (talk) 20:13, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes. I already checked this. Can confirm. GMG^talk 13:00, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

"Debunked"

@Mathglot: Just noting, I don't know that I really fully understand what it is they're talking about. I just used "debunked" because it's the exact wording from the cited source. GMG^talk 14:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: Wow; well, one normally can't be faulted by using the exact word from a source, but that pretty much means "refuted", and that's too definitive an assessment for something with research and opinion on both sides. There's plenty of controversy about it, and I would say that since there are (or were, I don't keep track) at least four primary sources listed at the ROGD article that appear to support it, and some professional opinion as well, wherever one comes down on the topic, "debunked" or "refuted" would be too strong a word. I followed the PinkNews source and the 4w source, and the former is as strongly opposed to the concept of ROGD ("debunked") as the latter is in support of it (YT video of Nazi book-burning). Neither of these sources should be used to cite the WP:LEADPARAGRAPH in my opinion, although they could be used for their opinion as WP:BIASED sources in the body along with in-text attribution.

Since the whole idea of ROGD has become another front in the trans battle of the culture war, the loudest voices are the ones from advocates from both sides, and I don't think simply having one of each in the lead means that we've addressed the issue adequately. With all the noise, it makes it harder to find the reliable sources, but that's what we need to go for. If it were up to me, I'd toss (or move) both sources out of the lead, and try to find some that have no agenda and look at the whole issue more dispassionately. Thanks for raising this. Mathglot (talk) 16:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

This is probably fair. I'll make your argument along with you. Probably need a MEDRS compliant source here one way or the other. GMG^talk 16:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Note the WP:MEDRS source of the World Professional Association of Transgender Health's position statement: [4] The term "Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD)" is not a medical entity recognized by any major professional association, nor is it listed as a subtype or classification in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) or International Classification of Diseases (ICD). Therefore, 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. At present, WPATH asserts that knowledge of the factors contributing to gender identity development in adolescence is still evolving and not yet fully understood by scientists, clinicians, community members, and other stakeholders in equal measure. Note that no matter what PinkNews may claim, it is not debunked. It is "a proposed clinical phenomenon", though not officially recognized as definitely a thing. WPATH was agnostic on whether it's worth researching further. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)