Talk:Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

French press release

The French press release recently added to the lead, has been moved down to section § Professional commentary for the time being, while we decide if it should be in the article at all, and in what form. At first glance, it appears to be a rehash of information already in the article, with the exception of the new bit that France has observed "clusters" as well. My initial feeling is that the current size of it is WP:UNDUE for the article body, and out of the question for the WP:LEAD. I have a feeling it should be reduced to "...and in France..." in some sentence somewhere that summarizes reports from other countries. Mathglot (talk) 11:34, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be in the lead, but I think it should be included under "Professional commentary" as the comments of a significant medical organization are pretty much inherently noteworthy. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:37, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps, but there's no need for a French source to parrot information about the original article or U.S. controversy already present in the article; if we use it, it should be for the new information it contains, which afaict, is simply the fact that it's been noticed in France. Anything else, is redundant, imho. Mathglot (talk) 01:42, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I've rewritten it, since the original version was awkward, and it didn't come out any shorter, fwiw. I'd welcome other attempts. Mathglot (talk) 20:22, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

NHS England

I believe this was discussed last week, but I don't see it anywhere on the talk page. However, there is an article in the Telegraph stating "Most children who think they’re transgender are just going through a ‘phase’, says NHS". There is also an article in CBN.com, fox News, The Times, and the National Review discussing the NHS decision. As the relates directly to the article topic, I believe there is an argument to be made it should be covered here. Additionally, the MacDonald Lauerier Institute discusses ROGD in an article about the NHS decision: https://macdonaldlaurier.ca/gender-dysphoria-in-children-risking-harm-from-well-intentioned-parents-and-doctors/ 2600:1700:1250:6D80:688F:729B:9C1F:248C (talk) 22:25, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

The "MacDonald Laurier Institute" piece is essentially an op-ed by a retired bio-infomatics guy. It doesnt really conteibute to WP:DUE. Newimpartial (talk) 22:58, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

With respect, I'm not sure I'd agree. Dr. Zitner is a renown expert in public health policy and mecial informatics. He was also Director of Medical Informatics, Dalhousie University from its founding in 1995 until 2009. Dr. Zitner has served on the board of the Canadian Council for Health Services Accreditation, DoctorsNS and the Canadian College of Family Physicians. And he is currently a Health Policy Fellow for the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies. He is a respected expert on public health policy and has a reputation of being neither left nor right- wing. Regardless, there are the other sources I mentioned. This decision by the NHS is pretty big news and should at least be mentioned.

The Zitner piece directly relates to the topic being discussed and is extremely well-sourced. Would it be possible to add a reference to the Zitner piece somewhere in the article body?

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1250:6D80:688F:729B:9C1F:248C (talk) 23:06, 2 November 2022 (UTC) 

Please read WP:RSOPINION, which is the category into which the Zitner piece falls. Unless other RS make reference to his opinion, its inclusion is unlikely to be WP:DUE.

Also, and not particularly related to that question of WP policy, being an expert in public health policy and mecial informatics who retired in 2009 is not a standpoint likely to generate insights that are relevant to this article, which concerns a controversy that has played out over the last four or five years. Newimpartial (talk) 23:58, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Dr. Zitner is also quoted separately, on the same subject, in the National Post: https://nationalpost.com/opinion/opinion-doctors-and-parents-need-to-rethink-gender-affirming-care-for-children — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1250:6D80:688F:729B:9C1F:248C (talk) 00:04, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

That isn't a quote, that's his WP:RSOPINION being platformed again. The current state of Wikipedia policy is basically that opinion pieces don't gain in DUE representation because one person's non-expert views are republished multiple times. Newimpartial (talk) 00:16, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Correct me if Im wrong, but this article quotes multiple opinion pieces on the viability of ROGD. Why would this particular piece not be DUE? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1250:6D80:688F:729B:9C1F:248C (talk) 00:28, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Because of how wikipedia policy treats opinion pieces. They do not contribute to DUE. As discussed in the previous section, this content needs to settle before we cover it on Wikipedia. Your representation of the NHS opinion on the matter is inaccurate, as the actual mentions in news agencies indicate it is a draft guideline. Let's wait until it's not a draft. see also: WP:RSBREAKING (the section you describe is now in the archive, because i archived it to save space on this extremely long talk page) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:39, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

IP, I'm not sure whether you've read WP:RSOPINION. If you have, perhaps you could let us know where in the article you see such sources used (hint: RSOPINION is not defined by "expressing an opinion", which we expect most sources to do at all levels of reliability). Newimpartial (talk) 00:44, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

This is a quote directly from the article: "In a 2020 commentary (emphasis mine) in Pediatrics, citing Littman's paper among others, Annelou de Vries wrote that gender identity development was diverse and called for more research into this demographic cohort. I would like to get opinions of other editors here as to whether the Zitner piece is indeed DUE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1250:6D80:688F:729B:9C1F:248C (talk) 01:00, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think you can compare a commentary in Pediatrics to an op-ed in the National Post. For one thing, Pediatrics isn't known to platform the views of non-experts, at least not to my knowledge. Not that I have any particular use for that commentary in particular. Newimpartial (talk) 01:07, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

expert opinions are more likely to be DUE than non-experts. (and no, someone who retired in 2009 is not likely to be seen as an expert on a topic that was first described in 2018 - especially when their opinion was not published in medical journals). — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:46, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I do not think it is DUE. Zitner retired fourteen years ago (2009), and his clinical/professional background appears to be in general practice for adults and medical informatics. He does not appear to be a current or former expert when it comes to gender identity or gender dysphoria and how it presents in adults or children. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:54, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Regardless as to whether the decision is a "draft" or not, every day there are more sources reporting on the NHS decision. RECENTISM no longer applies. This is big news and should absolutely be addressed in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1250:6D80:A1F5:249A:BEA5:56CF (talk) 22:54, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Dr's. Marci Bowers and Erica Anderson

t There is an article in Web MD regarding comments made by Marci Bowers, MD, president-elect of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health and Erica Anderson, PhD, president of the U.S. Professional Association for Transgender Health.

In their comments, Bowers and Anderson (both of whom are transgender themselves) claim that adolescents are expereincing ROGD (they refer to the term directly). They also criticize the quality of assessments and care for children and adolescents experiencing gender dysphoria. The article can be found at https://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/news/20211129/transgender-docs-gender-affirmative-care-youth 2600:1012:B024:5659:85D5:10BE:9E8F:3A7B (talk) 04:48, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Given Bowers' renown as a groundbreaker in trans health and her status as president-elect, it certainly seems worth mentioning (though controversial). EvergreenFir (talk) 05:08, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. The WebMD article, and the original interview between Bowers, Anderson, and Abigail Shrier were published over a year ago.

The original interview was published on Bari Weiss' substack, which is an inherently unreliable source. From what I recall at the time Bowers later claimed on Twitter (cannot find the link now sadly as her Twitter presence seems to have been nuked) that her comments were edited by Shrier and taken out of context. Aside from this WebMD article, the only other reliable source I could find that mentions this is a paywalled article on Medscape, for which I could only find a partial archive.

Even with just the unreliability of the source of the original interview, and there seemingly only being two other reliable sources covering this, as I cannot verify my memory of Bower's Twitter claim, I'm not sure this meets DUE, at least on this article. It is already included over on Bower's article though, as is a later statement in the New York Times Magazine, where she distanced herself from the Shrier interview and its other participants. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Is there an actual source for these comments? Since it doesn't seem like the interview was with WebMD. And there's a weird broken sentence In an interview with, Anderson says she stands by the comments that makes me even more confused on, indeed, whom the interview was with. Silverseren^C 05:22, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

The original interview was with Abigail Shirer in Commin Sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B024:5659:85D5:10BE:9E8F:3A7B (talk) 05:46, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Bowers does not endorse ROGD in the article. Her personal website also clearly criticizes ROGD in the FAQ:

What is ROGD?

Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria is a largely discredited acronym referring to those transgender persons who appear to ‘come out of nowhere’, skeptics attributing their choice to transition as nothing more than social contagion. It is a term used by conservatives and naysayers to deny, discredit and de-legitimize transgender persons and their search for identity as being a short term, impulsive act influenced by others.

I'm not seeing anything about Bowers endorsing the concept of ROGD. Not surprising since WPATH has criticized ROGD already. Saying that assessments for gender dysphoria should be better, is totally different from endorsing the ROGD concept. Hist9600 (talk) 15:32, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect. We have a reliable secondary source stating the following (referring to Dr. Bowers): "The comments have drawn controversy because of their claim that some adolescents are experiencing what has been dubbed "rapid-onset" gender dysphoria"

Source:https://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/news/20211129/transgender-docs-gender-affirmative-care-youth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B008:B64C:A1C1:3499:2A15:7D3C (talk) 02:08, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Not only that, but we also have a different reliable secondary source referring to Dr's Bowers and Anderson stating: "They note the increasing incidence of, often temporary, rapid onset gender dysphoria (ROGD) where youngsters express an interest in changing from their birth sex, an interest that diminishes or disappears as they get older. Bowers and Anderson emphasize that many people change their minds!"

Source:https://macdonaldlaurier.ca/gender-dysphoria-in-children-risking-harm-from-well-intentioned-parents-and-doctors/— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B008:B64C:A1C1:3499:2A15:7D3C (talk) 02:14, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

And here is an additional secondary source discussing Dr.Anderson and ROGD:https://genspect.org/dr-erica-anderson-social-contagion-at-work/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B008:B64C:A1C1:3499:2A15:7D3C (talk) 02:27, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Genspect is not a reliable secondary source. The MacDonald Laurier article is clearly labeled a "Commentary," meaning that it is an opinion piece, not a news article, and material from it may only be used to support the attributed claims of its author. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:33, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

The WebMD source is both reliable and DUE for the topic at hand. Regarding the McDonald Laurier piece I agree it should be used to support the attributed claims of its author, Dr. Zither, who is a current (not retired) Health Policy Fellow for the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B063:20C1:C1C6:2719:6E4B:64F4 (talk) 07:45, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Even if we were to say that these sources are all reliable sources (they are not), none of them clearly indicate that either person has endorsed ROGD. Instead we have articles written in a very biased manner that discuss ROGD in the body text, and mix in a few quotations here and there to conflate different positions.

WebMD is considered usually a reliable source for medical information that is uncontroversial. If the information is controversial, though, or if it is not about medicine, then it may not be a reliable source. In this case the article does not even say that either person endorses ROGD. Saying that the quality of diagnoses for children needs to improve, for example, is totally different from endorsing ROGD. Saying that some people may regret transition if they are not given proper guidance, as another example, is also totally different from endorsing ROGD. We need to not only identify reliable sources, but also use sources appropriately.

The Atlantic Institute for Market Studies is a conservative think tank. They are not a major medical organization. They are not experts on transgender healthcare. Hist9600 (talk) 08:31, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

There is some discussion of Bowers and Anderson's interviews here [1] although no mention of the ROGD issue. I found this from our article Marci Bowers where there was also mention of the claim. I removed it as the source was a National Review article which seems to be an opinion piece. Both there and here it's a BLP issue, we need quality sources if we are going to make claims about the views of living people. While it's clear that both Bowers and Anderson did participate in interviews where they raised various concerns some of which aligned with Shrier's views, it seems very unclear they intended to endorse ROGD in any way, in the case of Bowers in particular, it seems unlikely she did. It seems to be only sources misrepresenting their views. Just like we should not trust a source which says vaccinologist X endorses the dangers of COVID-19 vaccines when all they said is something uncontroversial e.g. that in small number of cases COVID-19 vaccines appear to be correlated with serious side effects and it's quite likely that the vaccines were a significant causation factor in at least some of these cases, we should be very wary of any source which suggests either living person was endorsing ROGD. I would add that both individuals and the interviews seems to have received a lot of attention, so if they were really intending to endorse ROGD, we should not need to scrape the bottom of the source barrel. Nil Einne (talk) 12:12, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Other portions of the same interview with Bowers and Anderson are quoted in an article in The Economist from around the same date. See "Opinion on the use of puberty blockers in America is turning". The Economist. Oct 16, 2021. Note this relevant passage:

Dr Bowers appeared to acknowledge the existence of "this ROGD thing" as she called it. "I think there probably are people who are influenced. There is a little bit of 'Yeah, that’s so cool. Yeah, I kind of want to do that too.'" In some cases, she said, girls with eating disorders were being diagnosed with gender dysphoria, "then they see you for one visit, and then they recommend testosterone."

That was a public statement about ROGD made by the president of WPATH. The Economist is reasonable in characterizing it as an apparent acknowledgement by Bowers of ROGD's existence. The statement does not need to be a full or partial "endorsement" of ROGD to be worth including (as an attributed quote) in this article about the ROGD controversy. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 21:38, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

An executive at The Economist, Helen Joyce, has published a book titled "Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality" and has said trans people are a "huge problem to a sane world". And we know she's responsible for at least some of their coverage on trans issues, because she was the organizer of this series on trans issues. In short, I do not trust The Economist to represent this quote accurately. Loki (talk) 04:46, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

(Oh, and this is even if I trusted Abigail Shrier, who originally conducted the interview, to represent the quote properly, which I absolutely don't. She's a pop science author and trans-exclusionary feminist who has written a whole book endorsing this debunked theory.) Loki (talk) 04:50, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Understandable feelings, but see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#The_Economist for longstanding Wikipedia consensus that puts The Economist in the top category of reliable sources (WP:GREL). As a mainstream print magazine with editors and fact-checkers, it certainly can be relied upon for meeting the minimal journalistic standard of accurately quoting a source's words within quotation marks. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 17:58, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

How are the quoted portions usable? They refer to "this ROGD thing" and quote "I think there probably are people who are influenced. There is a little bit of 'Yeah, that’s so cool. Yeah, I kind of want to do that too.' ... then they see you for one visit, and then they recommend testosterone". How would we use that in this article? Editors desiring to mention the interview seem to be leaning into the interpretations the BIASEDSOURCES are placing on the interview with Shrier. Newimpartial (talk) 18:05, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

We simply quote the piece in the article using quotation marks, as described above: The Economist states that "Dr Bowers appeared to acknowledge the existence of "this ROGD thing" as she called it. "I think there probably are people who are influenced. There is a little bit of 'Yeah, that’s so cool. Yeah, I kind of want to do that too.'" In some cases, she said, girls with eating disorders were being diagnosed with gender dysphoria, "then they see you for one visit, and then they recommend testosterone." ". This is not a controversial or even questionable addition. We simply quote a reliable source (which The Economist is). Frankly, I am surprised there is so much discussion over such an edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1250:6D80:1C83:A6A:614A:57A0 (talk) 18:35, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I have two objections to this proposed addition: (1) it seems to be COPYVIO from The Economist source and (2) those same interpolations that create the COPYVIO also bring in an interpretetetion by Shrier and/or The Economist, which should not under any circumstances be presented in wikivoice as what Bowers actually meant. Newimpartial (talk) 18:58, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Remembering that this is an article specifically about a "controversy," it is clear how this article should use the quote. As an attributed block quote, strictly NPOV, with an inline citation and a footnote to identify the speaker and cited source. Nothing more or less than that. Bowers has not disputed the accuracy of the quote, nor stated anywhere that Shrier or The Economist misrepresented or misinterpreted the quoted words. It would be at least WP:OR for editors to assume otherwise and act on the basis of that belief. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 20:25, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

You suggesting this made me look this up, and actually, she has: Regarding the 10/4/21 article by Abigail Shrier, I remain disappointed by the tone and intent of the article. My comments were taken out of context and used to cast doubt upon trans care, particularly the use of puberty blockers.

Oh by the way, the actual interview source isn't The Economist, it's Bari Weiss's Substack. Loki (talk) 21:11, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Sure, but: for one, the actual interviewer is Shrier, not The Economist. And for two, the actual quotes are "this ROGD thing", "I think there probably are people who are influenced. There is a little bit of 'Yeah, that’s so cool. Yeah, I kind of want to do that too.'", and "then they see you for one visit, and then they recommend testosterone." None of those make sense without interpretation (the second one is closest but the first and third just don't make any sense), and I very much do not trust either Shrier or The Economist as sources of interpretation here.

Remember, Bowers is on the record on her own website saying Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria is a largely discredited acronym referring to those transgender persons who appear to ‘come out of nowhere’, skeptics attributing their choice to transition as nothing more than social contagion. It is a term used by conservatives and naysayers to deny, discredit and de-legitimize transgender persons and their search for identity as being a short term, impulsive act influenced by others. Putting together a bunch of partial quotes to imply she thinks differently is way past WP:NPOV and into WP:BLP issues. Loki (talk) 21:07, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Actually we have an additional reliable source stating the following:

• It references the interview with Shirer and directly addresses ROGD: " The term was first coined in 2018 by researcher Lisa Littman, MD, MPH, president of The Institute for Comprehensive Gender Dysphoria Research (ICGDR), but is not yet officially accepted. However, many researchers in the field acknowledge the phenomenon that it describes: a huge increase in the Western world of teenagers and young adults suddenly expressing a transgender identity seemingly out of the blue, when previously there had been no indication that they were uncomfortable with their biological sex.
• Now, in an interview with Medscape Medical News, Anderson says she stands by the comments she made to Schrier. "I'm concerned that there are some...providers of mental health [care] and medical providers who are not observing WPATH standards of care and who may be less fully qualified to deliver care."
• "It disturbs me a great deal, which is why I'm speaking out, even though I've incurred the ire of some people who think that just by speaking out I am causing problems," says Anderson. Bowers, a gynecologic surgeon, has felt similar pressure. She told Shrier: "There are definitely people who are trying to keep out anyone who doesn't absolutely buy the party line that everything should be affirming and that there's no room for dissent."
• Anderson says that she and another psychologist, Laura Edwards-Leeper, PhD, are among the few willing to speak out. "Others have dubbed Dr Edwards-Leeper and I the 'brave ones' because we're willing to talk about these issues," she says.

Source: https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/963269 . I continue to be amazed by the lengths editors will go to prevent this information to added to the article.

2600:1700:1250:6D80:A1F5:249A:BEA5:56CF (talk) 22:48, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Nothing you've posted here is directly related to ROGD, so I'm not sure why you want to add it to this article. Even the quote you posted above is concern that some providers are not following WPATH standards. WPATH has come out strongly against ROGD. It's inconceivable how someone could twist that into an endorsement of ROGD. If anything, it is an endorsement of the WPATH SOC as the standard guidelines that providers should be following. Hist9600 (talk) 23:05, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I continue to be amazed by the lengths editors will go to prevent this information to added to the article.

Funny, we're amazed at the lengths you're going to misrepresent sources in order to push your point of view. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:19, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry

Article entitled "Demographics and gender-related measures in younger and older adolescents presenting to a gender service" was written in the above named journal. It discusses ROGD at length. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00787-022-02082-8 2600:1012:B06A:978D:249E:A670:DFB0:3701 (talk) 19:16, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Interesting.

It notes: "Although the results of the present study suggest that there may be different developmental in adolescents that lead to seeking gender-affirming medical care, our data do not allow us to conclude whether or not this suggested ‘ROGD’ subtype exists. Our results show that there was gender nonconformity in childhood in older presenters, although less extreme than in the younger presenting group, which speaks against this suggested subtype. However, we did not evaluate other hypothesized factors that would be associated with ‘ROGD’, such as mental health difficulties. Furthermore, we did not examine how gradual or sudden the onset was. A Canadian study recently examined whether they could identify the phenomenon of 'ROGD' in their clinical population (N = 173). They concluded that there was no 'ROGD' because the vast majority (68–86%) did not have 'recent gender knowledge' (realized their gender was different from what other people called them) and because those who did have 'recent gender knowledge' showed relatively less anxiety severity/impairment [38]. In response to this study, Littman pointed out that Bauer et al. had not used the correct definition of ‘ROGD’ because, ‘ROGD’ would not be related to having a short history of gender incongruence, but to not having gender incongruence before puberty [39]. More studies using both self and parent report measures would be needed to gain better insight in the existence of the ‘ROGD’ subtype." - there's a bit more but I don't want to run afoul of copyright rules. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:19, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Not sure if it's a useful study to include anywhere in the article when it basically just noted that their study wasn't set up in a way to determine anything related to that subject. Silverseren^C 00:24, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

At the least it provides secondary coverage for both the Canadian study and Littman's response to it - the latter of which was debated and left out previously IIRC for lack of secondary coverage. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:27, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Quoted citation no longer exists.

FYI, I was vetting one of the citations (IE: 37) and the provided quote no longer exists in the cited source article. I'm not an editor, so I'll leave this for others to rectify. 142.114.95.3 (talk) 15:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

The quote still exists, see the expandable section in the source "Read More: Debunking So-Called “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria" TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:55, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Lead-in Change

Hi,

There is a blurb at the top about the lead-in being too long. I'm wondering if it would be a good start to move paragraphs 2 and 3 out of the lead-in and leave 1 and 4 there? 2 and 3 seem to be primarily about Littman and the article Bjtplett (talk) 15:06, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Archiving of previous discussions

Recently, there was an attempt (by myself) to un-archive previous ROGD talk page discussions. I was under the mistaken impression that the topics in question were still being actively discussed. I was wrong, and I am sorry. I am not going to make any excuses for my behavior except to say none of my actions were done with any kind of malice. It was an error in judgement, a bad error, and one I regret because it reflects poorly on my competence as an editor. I want to thank user:Sideswipe9th for their quick and correct action in reverting my mistake. I will also be self-imposing a week-long hiatus on any and all editing. If any editor here wishes to take me to ANI, I understand and will not object. Thank you. 2600:1700:1250:6D80:202D:4D20:49B3:9319 (talk) 20:21, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

It was a mistake, but these things happen and there's no need to take you to ANI over it or for you to self-impose a hiatus. If you wish to start a discussion on the archived issue, feel free to do so referring to the past discussion when opening a new section. Just please review the past contributions to make sure you're not stating something that has already been addressed by another editor. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:34, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2023

Please change “anti-trans” to “gender critical”. Anti-trans is an inflammatory term that is highly subjective and used to sabotage and undermine proponents of gender critical thinking. 119.17.144.4 (talk) 01:53, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done We have to follow the sources and write in plain English that our readers can understand. We should avoid obfuscatory euphemisms such as "gender critical" as this would impede our readers understanding. There is nothing inflammatory about any of this. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:05, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2023

Change "In a formal comment published by PLOS One at the conclusion of its review, academic editor and professor of social psychology Angelo Brandelli Costa wrote"

to "In a formal comment published by PLOS One at the conclusion of its review, PLOS One Psychology Section Editor and professor of social psychology Angelo Brandelli Costa wrote" Angelobrcosta (talk) 18:50, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm assuming, given your user name, that this is you? A red link is basically an invitation to create an article on the topic in question, in this case you. But a quick Google search didn't seem to indicate that you meet our notability criteria (i.e. neither WP:GNG nor WP:PROF). Unless you can point us toward a few instances of significant, independent coverage in reliable, secondary source, it doesn't seem the name should be red linked. Generalrelative (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Here some links:

https://www.pucrs.br/en/blog/pucrs-professor-receives-international-recognition/

https://www.pucrs.br/en/blog/pucrs-professor-awarded-association-for-psychological-sciences-rising-star-designation/

https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/careers-up-close-angelo-brandelli-costa

https://theintercept.com/equipe/angelo-brandelli-costa/

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/section-editors

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0742-8152

https://www.apa.org/international/networks/global-psychology-alliance/learning-leadership-institute

https://www.sbponline.org.br/2022/03/association-for-psychological-science-publica-artigo-sobre-angelo-brandelli-costa Angelobrcosta (talk) 22:42, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for providing these links, but unfortunately they do not establish notability since none of them are significant, independent coverage in reliable, secondary sources (note that each of those words in blue links to a guideline or policy; click to learn more). In particular, most of them are neither independent nor secondary. And we would need multiple such sources to establish notability per WP:GNG. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 23:23, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I just want to point that all of the links that I gave you, besides orcid, refers to independent, reliable, and secondary sources not related to me according with your own criteria. But I respect your opinion. Angelobrcosta (talk) 22:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Bailey article retraction

 Courtesy link: J. Michael Bailey

I am not sure whether this belongs in the article but J. Michael Bailey has just had a paper about "ROGD" retracted for failing to get adequate consent from the participants.

• https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-023-02635-1

The specific paper is not mentioned in the article so maybe this is more for his article than this one. Nonetheless I thought I should mention it here. DanielRigal (talk) 19:52, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

@DanielRigal: Thanks; I noticed it too, and was similarly unsure, but I think your conclusion is probably the right one. I've taken the liberty to expand the section title to clarify the topic; without it, it raised a question in my mind whether an editor here was retracting something they had said earlier. Feel free to revert to original title, if you disagree. Mathglot (talk) 20:59, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

On second look, maybe it should be included here. I was going to go update the Bailey article with something about it and be done with it, so I did a search to see if I could get a secondary report, instead of the Springer (primary) source. Somewhat to my surprise for a retraction only published three days ago, there are already quite a few secondary sources about it, and much of the reaction perfectly echoes the atmosphere of controversy that is the subject of this article. Given that, I think we should include it somewhere. Mathglot (talk) 21:08, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Original Bailey article is here; official retraction here. Medscape's article on the retraction is here, and also summarizes the Bailey article. The summary makes it sound like an attempt to duplicate the Littman study; however, the methdology, if Medscape's reporting is accurate, seems to have exactly the same type of problems that the original Littman paper was criticized for: "The [Bailey] paper reported the results of a survey of parents who contacted the website ParentsofROGDKids.com, with which the first author is affiliated." The Medscape article goes on to say that "Soon after publication, the paper attracted criticism that its method of gathering study participants was biased, and that the authors ignored information that didn't support the theory of ROGD." The retraction was due to "concerns about lack of informed consent", according to one of the paper's authors. Mathglot (talk) 21:38, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Related question (about pseudonymous authors) added to WT:MED. Mathglot (talk) 23:00, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

So I learned of this myself yesterday. When I searched at the time, while there were sources discussing the retraction, very few of them are actually those we consider to be reliable, and those that were reliable seemed to be clearly marked opinion articles and not any actual reporting. Even today, I'm not really seeing anything usable other than the Medscape article Mathglot has linked. At this time, I'm not sure if we can cover the retraction on either article without at least one or two more reliable sources covering this per WP:DUE.

However if there is sourcing, and others can link to it so we can analyse, a brief note on this might be warranted. Though whatever we write we should be careful not to fulfil Bailey's desire for a Streisand effect reaction to this. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, as I started to go through them, I noticed the low quality as well; almost all had an axe to grind. This article in the NY Sun (not to be confused with the deprecated The Sun (UK)) seems usable. As far as whether to include it or not, I don't think we can allow Bailey's wishes to affect us pro or con; but we could look at WP:DUE, and maybe it doesn't meet that bar. Mathglot (talk) 04:35, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

[See also, 'Possible bias' section above]

Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD) is an academic theory which has been the source of much discourse since 2018. It was proposed by a qualified academic in a scholarly journal of repute and is a considered a theory of note by many scholars in the field. It has been the subject of many articles in non-deprecated sources; this has led it to be widely discussed amongst non-academics and in the media. There has been a particular upsurge in such discussion following a recent paper by a well-known scholar in the field. A simple Google then Google Scholar search yields much evidence of all of this. The ROGD theory is controversial, not yet proven to a clinical level (it may indeed be refuted at some point) and is manifestly not a matter of orthodoxy within the relevant fields. It is, however, a substantive and serious theory receiving much legitimate consideration and leading much public debate. Public discourse around the theory routinely segues into areas influenced by ideology. Some editors here, acting in good faith but also in error, have in my view taken the article outwith the boundaries of WP:NPOV by claiming that the theory itself does not conform to WP:GNG and instead stressing the controversy. This is clearly an incorrect claim. ROGD is both WP:GNG and WP:V. It is not WP:UNDUE; to label is as such would disqualify all prominent new theories from Wikipedia articles. Moreover, the theory has received much coverage and the WP:DUE calculus is about public profile and not academic opinion. The entire article is imbalanced and this starts from the title and the first sentence. I sought to improve the first sentence

This article was created with first sentence which began; "Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD) is "a provisional label" that has been used to characterize "a new subgroup of adolescents,...". This first sentence was clear and accurate. It is now; "Controversy surrounds the concept of rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD), proposed as a subtype of gender dysphoria...". This new introductory sentence is very clumsy and needs improving, however it also seeks (along with the title) to replace the ROGD theory as the primary subject of the article with the controversy as the primary subject. This would not matter if there were another ROGD article, but some editors here argue that ROGD fails WP:GNG and in the event that (another) one is created should be merged into this article. I sought to improve the first sentence and my edit has been reverted.

The remainder of the lead is far too long. The rest of the article emphasises how ROGD is controversial and is not about ROGD itself. This is legitimate for an article about a controversy if it passes WP:GNG, but not about ROGD. The article needs a great deal of work.

The solution, in my view, is to keep this article and not create a new ROGD one but recognise that it is substantively about ROGD; albeit with a significant section to cover its controversial nature. The word 'controversy' should be removed from the title of the article and the original first sentence reinstated. The lead should then be reduced and more work can then be carried out on the main body. The second best solution would be to create a new ROGD article with a link to this one, but not to merge the two. In this event, the new ROGD article should simply describe the theory and its origin; it should mention but not discuss the controversy at length, and instead link to the 'controversy' article. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 16:43, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

As you say in your "See also" at the top, this appears to be a continuation of the § Possible bias section, and is not really a separate discussion topic. And in fact, you repeat most or all of your previous points from that section here, which are all opinions unsupported by evidence, and they have already been responded to above, and refuted with policy/guideline links, diffs, and links to available sourcing, so I see no need to continually respond to the same questions over and over when consensus is already clear from evidence already given. If you wish to bring new arguments to bear, or new evidence, I'm sure you'll get good feedback, but I see no need to respond to previously discussed topics at the present time. As to your repetition of the opinion that the lead is too long, I repeat my offer to work with you on that. I see nothing else that needs a response here, and am content to let this discussion die. Mathglot (talk) 17:12, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Two quick points, @Mathglot. First, I've followed the WP:NPOV dispute procedure. That entails a new section entitled 'NPOV dispute'; presumably because it is easier for people who come to the discussion from the NPOV dispute discussion page to orientate. Second, I have referred to a simple Google and Google Scholar searches which provide ample evidence in respect of my argument: I could instead provide links here but unless I did so in a very large number of cases I would likely be accused of cherry picking. Again, for people new to the discussion, it is for them to make their own judgement based on the obvious results of such easy and simple searches. Emmentalist (talk) 21:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

You have every right to so so; I'll watch with interest. Mathglot (talk) 21:20, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for comments, all. I've taken careful note and read over the material referred to. I am wrong. I was a bull in a china shop, with all the china connoisseurs explaining that I might have a mino(tau)r point (lead too long) but otherwise I was just breaking shit. I am especially convinced by @mathglot's reasoning before I commented. I got fixated on the seeming notability but failed to contextualise the whole thing properly. In essence, mines was a bad edit which came though inexperience. I hugely, and honestly, appreciate the comments from more experienced editors, which I'll learn from. In case there's any doubt, I retract my NPOV claim. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 22:12, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Possible bias

The article could benefit from separating the description of the ROGD topic from the controversy over its validity and acceptance. I think the initial description of the theory of ROGD could adopt a neutral tone. Criticism of the topic could then come in a separate section. Also a separate section describing the history of the term, separate from the description of the term, would help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milkchaser (talk • contribs) 15:12, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

We do, however, need to follow the reliable sources and this is not the approach that they take to the topic. If anything, I find that this version of the lede - which I just tweaked - still describes ROGD as more of a fleshed-out, plausible scientific hypothesis than do any of the RS on the topic, including the primary sources by the concept's originator (in scholarly discourse, setting aside its prehistory on the interwebs). Newimpartial (talk) 14:28, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Milkchaser, I think separating it would be a bad idea because it is not supported by Wikipedia's policy (in particular, WP:DUEWEIGHT). The controversy over its validity and the associated storm of commentary in media and academia is pretty much the entire story about ROGD. Maybe somewhere deep down, there's a tiny, uncontroversial kernel somewhere dealing strictly with the science, perhaps; let's say, the original publication in PLOS One. However, had there been no controversy, there is virtually zero chance that this paper would ever have achieved a level of WP:Notability enabling it to have an article on Wikipedia. No controversy, no article, period.

To get a feeling for the level of notability of articles on PLOS One, let's look at just the 92 articles published at PLOS One on 16 August 2018, the day Littman's paper appeared there. Day-of-pub can be seen as a proxy for a random selection of papers that include Littman's paper:

Engagement values for papers published on PLOS One on 16 August 2018

Here are all original research articles published on the PLOS One platform on 16 August 2018 (92 papers; limited to original research papers). With 92 original papers published that day, that amounts to about one every fifteen minutes. Papers published just before, and just after Littman's, are a pretty good proxy for an unbiased sample of papers at PLOS. Here is a link to Littman's paper in the context of the articles published before after it, and here they are in a list along with basic engagement stats: Spectral effects of light-emitting diodes on plant growth, visual color quality, and photosynthetic photon efficacy: White versus blue plus red radiation Views: 13908 • Citations: 45 • Saves: 0 • Shares: 0 Lung cancer in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis Views: 7079 • Citations: 46 • Saves: 38 • Shares: 1 GRASShopPER—An algorithm for de novo assembly based on GPU alignments Views: 3957 • Citations: 3 • Saves: 36 • Shares: 20 Predicting segregation of multiple fruit-quality traits by using accumulated phenotypic records in citrus breeding Views: 1720 • Citations: 5 • Saves: 0 • Shares: 0 Identifying feasible operating regimes for early T-cell recognition: The speed, energy, accuracy trade-off in kinetic proofreading and adaptive sorting Views: 1461 • Citations: 12 • Saves: 22 • Shares: 4 Parent reports of adolescents and young adults perceived to show signs of a rapid onset of gender dysphoria Views: 460611 • Citations: 130 • Saves: 287 • Shares: 3201 Mottling score and skin temperature in septic shock: Relation and impact on prognosis in ICU Views: 3496 • Citations: 13 • Saves: 60 • Shares: 1 Is guideline-adherent prescribing associated with quality of life in patients with type 2 diabetes? Views: 1078 • Citations: 3 • Saves: 0 • Shares: 0 In vivo distribution of U87MG cells injected into the lateral ventricle of rats with spinal cord injury Views: 1397 • Citations: 5 • Saves: 13 • Shares: 2 PPARγ is reduced in the airways of non-CF bronchiectasis subjects and is inversely correlated with the presence of Pseudomonas aeruginosa Views: 1071 • Citations: 1 • Saves: 12 • Shares: 1 Cross-country information transmissions and the role of commodity markets: A multichannel Markov switching approach Views: 816 • Citations: 0 • Saves: 0 • Shares: 0 As a control query, on whether "gender"-related articles spikes the engagement, here are the ten articles from August 2018 with gender in the title. Except for the Littman article, engagement values are similar to those listed above.

This kind of engagement indicates one of two things: either it is the most seminal paper in the field of gender in a generation and one of the most important in any field, or it is the result of controversy that blew up beyond its narrow field within academia, into the popular press and the domain of culture wars. An examination of secondary sources in the article should be sufficient to clarify that point.

None of those other articles listed above have a Wikipedia article about them, and there is zero chance that that they ever will. The same thing would have been true of Littman's paper, *but for* the controversy. In this Wikipedia article, the controversy *is* the story; without it, there is no story. That's what this article is about, based on the overwhelming majority of reliable sources about it; that's what the title is, per WP:AT, and that's what the defining sentence says. The tone of the article is already neutral, because it properly reflects the sources written about it (or, as Newimpartial said, it probably tilts unduly in favor of ROGD as a hypothesis). Until the weight of reporting on this topic changes, per WP:DUE, that's what the article should reflect. Mathglot (talk) 22:23, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I do agree with @Mathglot. There is no ROGD topic without the controversy. They cannot be separated and the only way to describe ROGD is as a medical scandal. Calling it a controversy instead of scandal is very polite, maybe to polite. Pretending there is a way of talking about it without mentioning the fact it´s not proper research is not possible. Godfellow (talk) 23:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with @milkchaser and disagree with the follow-on comments above. ROGD need not be proven, or even a matter of scholarly orthodoxy, to pass WP:GNG. I do not agree that it is fails WP:Due either; it is quite clear that there is fairly widespread public knowledge of the theory as a means of explaining the racial increase is reported gender dysphoria. There is a high level of reportage on the subject of ROGD. Crucially, there is great public interest in the possible reasons for the increase in gender dysphoria and there can be little reasonable doubt that the theory would attract much interest (and pass WP:GNG) even if it were not contentious. As it stands, this article is muddled from the start because the lead is political. It seeks to reduce the status of ROGD by denying its instrinsic notability. This is an error and weakens the article. The article fails WP:NPOV from the start. As @milkchaser notes, there should be a neutral introduction at the lead; the lead should be much shorter than it presently is; the controversy should be referred to in the lead; the controversy should then be referred to in the main body (preferably not in its own section as this is generally lazy/bad practice). Any views, other editors? Emmentalist (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

@Emmentalist: I'll make a fuller reply later, however this edit is substantially the same as this edit, which I had already reverted per NPOV. Emmentalist will you please self-revert unless and until a consensus forms surrounding your change? Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:42, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

It's been reverted (not by me). The reasoning is terribly weak; it's nonsense to argue that ROGD would not be notable if it were not contentious. It's a theory which has had wide exposure in the media and that continues today. The first sentence of the lead is a dog's breakfast. I'm afraid the revert looks to me like politics. I have no interest in that. I'll reflect on what to do next. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 22:11, 17 June 2023 (UTC) strikeout per user's intent; see TPO comment below; Mathglot (talk) 22:21, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Emmentalist said,

As it stands, this article is muddled from the start because the lead is political. It seeks to reduce the status of ROGD by denying its instrinsic notability.

The lead is not "political". Nor does it seek to "reduce the status of ROGD" by denying notability. Taking the second point first: if editors here denied its notability, it would very likely be nominated for deletion or merging, but nobody is proposing that, so your argument appears to be a strawman. Any assertion that "the lead is political" and that the article is "muddled" because of it, is merely your unsupported opinion. In fact, content in the lead about the lack of support for ROGD among major professional and academic organizations is very well sourced, and the lead closely follows the preponderance of secondary sources, including both majority, and opposing minority viewpoints, and is compliant with both WP:DUE and WP:NPOV.

Your claims of "political" reasons for the status of the lead, and assertions of "denying notability" are groundless. If you have a particular beef with specific wording in the article, feel free to make a bold edit, as you have, or to propose alternate wording here so other editors can discuss your ideas. But merely making sweeping critical statements based on your personal opinion without concrete proposals for improvement is not a path to improving the article.

I am sympathetic to your argument for shortening the lead. I would approach this not by deleting content, but by refactoring the lead by moving certain information from the lead into the body of the article, and I'm happy to discuss that with anyone who has specific ideas about that. Mathglot (talk) 01:21, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Your reply makes little sense, I'm afraid. The title, first sentence and many of the comments above reflect a view that ROGD is not notable of itself. You write yourself; "the controversy *is* the story; without it, there is no story". Godfellow (talk)agrees; There is no ROGD topic without the controversy". Your are both denying that ROGD is notable of itself. However, ROGD is of itself the specific subject of many articles in non-deprecated sources, including scholarly papers. There is no doubt controversy around it, but this does not in any way detract from its notability as per WP:GNG. Inserting the word 'controversy' into the title and article changes both from being about ROGD to being about controversy per se. I do not doubt that you feel you are editing in good faith, but your edit is perverse and, to my mind, can only be explained by political intent. That harms the article. Finally, perhaps you have not thought through your comments, but you say I have not made a concrete proposal but also recognise that in fact I actually made the edit. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 07:20, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

You are treading very close to WP:NPA here. I suggest you step away for a bit. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:59, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Not at all. I think the best thing for now is to flag a NPOV dispute then take it from there. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Mathglot has already said pretty much all I was going to say. There have been no studies independent of Littman's that have replicated their findings, and all independent studies have into it have found no evidence in support of the proposed theory. Conversely the correction that was found necessary after the journal's re-review of Littman's paper, the near unanimous condemnation of the theory and Littman's research due to severe methodological flaaws by mainstream medical organisations and academics, and its propagation by fringe organisations like ACPeds and right-wing/conservative media sources like Fox News, are the primary topic here.

Adding a NPOV tag at this time would be disruptive. The neutrality of this article has been discussed many times since the article's creation, and every time the consensus has been that we are handling this article correctly. I would strongly urge that you review the past discussions in the talk page archives on this point. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Just as a postscript, since you've repeated your pervious assertions about notability of the topic sans controversy: it's no longer practical to attempt to assess the notability of the ROGD topic during the brief interval after publication and before the media storm exploded; nor does it matter now, even if you could. What is perfectly clear from a search in books, scholar, or the web is that the overwhelmingly vast proportion of secondary sources deal with the controversy engendered by the publication of the article, and the political and cultural reaction on all sides and not narrowly to the theory. Even if you could, somehow, view ROGD's early, atomic notability, it wouldn't matter, because WP:AT policy guides what the title should be, and it's clear what the majority of sources say; likewise, WP:PAGEDECIDE is policy also, and in my read of it requires that we keep whatever content that is available about the theory in this one article, as it is as impossible to separate now from the controversy as it is to unscramble an omelet. This argues in favor of the current title, and a single article, which is the much-discussed status quo. Mathglot (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy note, Emmentalist has now posted about this issue at NPOVN. Editors may wish to contribute to this discussion there. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:05, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi, @Sideswipe9thI've removed my comment about "political...etc", as you suggested. I've left in comments about my comment, so the continuity isn't perfect, but I thought that better than leaving my own comment in. I should not have written that and I apologise. I honestly didn't intend to get so close to WP:NPA but, as The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite pointed out, I definitely did. Lesson learned here. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 22:03, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Your conciliatory overture and mea culpa are much appreciated. We are all human and all make mistakes, but not everyone learns and progresses beyond it; you clearly have, and it speaks well of your intentions here and is a very good sign going forward. Just as a housekeeping note, since you are still fairly new here: the WP:REDACT guideline governs removal of text that has previously been replied to; I've taken the liberty of restoring your removed text, and striking it out, which is the approved method, for reasons you can read about at the link. In fact, my restoration of your words is a technical violation of WP:TPO, but for a good purpose: I am trying to implement what I think your intention is, but in a way compliant with the guideline. If I got it wrong, or you don't appreciate the removal for any reason, please feel free to remove the text again, but hopefully leaving some kind of "breadcrumbs" to flag the removal. Kudos, Mathglot (talk) 22:21, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks so much for this, @Mathglot. Also for tip re: WP:REDACT. Reading up on it now. Your restoration looks quite right to me. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 22:59, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Glad to see that particular issue worked itself out! — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:16, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Length of lead

The lead is tagged as "too long", and I agree that it could use some refactoring for length, and also per MOS:LEADNOTUNIQUE. (See "section sizes" at the top; the lead is currently about 20% of the non-appendix length of the body.) Emmentalist, you were the first to raise the length issue here iirc, in the context of other discussions that were mostly about other things, since resolved. But, the issue of lead length remains, so I thought I'd open a discussion dedicated to it, and invite your participation. I think that the names of professional associations and organizations could mostly be dropped, paragraph three could be cut back quite a bit (in both cases, with any unique information being moved into the body), and paragraphs 2 and 3 possibly combined after being thinned out. I don't want to take the lead on this, but would be happy to play a support role with anyone who's interested in taking it on. Mathglot (talk) 00:24, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

There's certainly some repetitive content. The second sentence of the first paragraph is repeated with some expansion as the last two sentences of the fourth paragraph. We could trim the second sentence of the first paragraph to something like ...and use of the term has been discouraged by most major medical organisations due to a... But if we do that someone might slap a {{who}} tag on there, so not sure. Maybe we could pre-empt that by adding a {{efn}} summarising who the organisations are?

The detail of the final two sentences of the fourth paragraph is already in the article's body in the professional commentary section, we could probably remove those sentences but I'd recommend working the fragment and the concept's use to justify laws limiting the rights of transgender youth in the United States into the remaining second sentence of the first paragraph.

Regardless of how we approach the first and fourth paragraph repetition however, I think it's important that we keep the lack of support for the theory from the major medical bodies in the first paragraph.

Do we need the second paragraph of the lead? Because the dataset for Littman's 2018 PLOSOne paper was drawn from the 2016 surveys discussed in the second paragraph, it seems as though we could merge that in with the third paragraph content. The logical location for such a merge for me would be when we summarise the criticisms of the 2018 paper, as the distribution of the survey through those three websites formed a not insubstantial amount of criticism for the paper. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:50, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Not worried about the who-tag issue, because if the actual orgs aren't mentioned in the body already, then it's a clear case of unique info in the lead, and it should just be moved to the body, and then not mentioning them in the lead is fine, because the lead is a summary, and {{who}} does not apply if details are already given below. Agree on lack of support in ¶1, but that doesn't mean we have to name the orgs (although if considered a "most important point", then we could). As far as drafting a shorter version, I think I favor doing that here (at Talk) because of the high contentiousness level of the article, and I don't want to draw knee-jerk reverts of bold edits when something fairly significant is happening with the lead; would be nice to have some buy-in first. Maybe let's sketch something out, and see if we can get a bit wider support here (or at least, nihil obstat) and then go ahead. Mathglot (talk) 16:35, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good. So looking at just the second sentence of paragraph 1, a straight up trim while keeping the same sources would yield us something like:

ROGD has not been recognized by any major professional association as a valid mental health diagnosis, and use of the term has been discouraged by most major medical organisations due to a lack of reputable scientific evidence, major methodological issues in existing research, and likelihood to cause harm by stigmatizing gender-affirming care.

There's still a little bit of repetition there, because we're saying major professional association and most major medical organisations in quick succession. We could merge that down further to something like:

ROGD has not been recognized by any major professional association as a valid mental health diagnosis, and use of the term has been discouraged due to a lack of reputable scientific evidence, major methodological issues in existing research, and likelihood to cause harm by stigmatizing gender-affirming care.

Not sure how we can work the and the concept's use to justify laws limiting the rights of transgender youth in the United States into that neatly though. Thoughts? Looking at what we want to convey in this sentence maybe trimming it is the wrong approach, and we should go for a clean-slate rephrasing of it? Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:53, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, let's finesse the WP:LEADSENTENCE issue for now, and leave it alone during this discussion. I've never been happy with the "Controversy surrounds..." formulation (although I think I might've been the one that suggested it in order to resolve an even worse problem) but I think we should leave it alone for now and concentrate on the general lead reduction first. Once that is resolved, I think we could revisit the lead sentence if there seems to be an appetite for it. Mathglot (talk) 16:44, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah that's fair. There almost certainly is a less clunky way of phrasing it that conveys the same meaning and intent. We can save that until the end. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:44, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th:, did a bunch of edits, nothing too bold, mostly consolidating, de-duping, nibbling at the edges. I did implement your suggested wording above. I'd like to shorten further if it makes sense to do so. It still *feels* a bit long, but then when I look at the details, I can't put my finger on anything specific that I think would improve the article by removing it. What do you think? Mathglot (talk) 23:27, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Can I make some suggestions? Coming from the NPOV board.

Right now the headings don't really work, but I'd improve the article first. This is what I'd start out with - note that I haven't read through all the sources:

Reduce the importance of Lisa Littman's background, she's not the topic of the article. I would cut this entire bit out, but be careful to see if the source can be rescued/otherwise valuable to the article - I don't think her background needs to be fully spelled out in the lead either:

Littman's medical specialties are in preventive medicine and public health, as well as obstetrics and gynecology.[22] Her research interests relate to reproductive health, gender dysphoria, detransition, and maternal and child health including prematurity and the use of substances in pregnancy.[22] Littman joined the faculty of the Brown University School of Public Health in 2018 as assistant professor of the Practice in Behavioral and Social Sciences.[22]

I would remove this phrase "in her small town in Rhode Island".

The term "three anti-transgender websites" isn't sourced and is in Wikpedia's voice, the sentence feels like it was short once and people kept packing it with extra detail, sentences like usually have unreferenced material stuffed into them. So this is one sentence I'd double check the references and correct.

Immediately after we already have criticism that is correctly referenced, not written in Wikipedia's voice, and phrased in more neutral ways: "Science described the first two..." and "Bioethicist..."

"The transgender youth themselves had no say in the study." More neutral POV: "The transgender youth were not directly surveyed."

Sentence "three-quarters of the parents surveyed" has no citation for it (probably just needs to be rescued, seems neutral enough if sourced, it's wierd it doesn't have one).

That's just how I would tidy up the first bit. The entire article seems extremely long for a hypothesis.

I might be bold and make a few of the minor changes here. Denaar (talk) 18:45, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I made the smaller edits - but still suggest removing that entire paragraph unless someone thinks it's really critical to the article in some way? Denaar (talk) 18:55, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I would remove this phrase "in her small town in Rhode Island" Yeah, that's fine. It doesn't really add much and this isn't a biography on Littman. The other paragraph though on Littman's training and background though I'd keep. We don't have a full biography on her, so there's nowhere else for readers to find out her clinical and research background.

The term "three anti-transgender websites" isn't sourced It's sourced in the article's body. Citation 1 states Littman's study was based on parental reports sampled from transantagonistic websites, citation 6 describes 4thWaveNow as a gender-critical blog, citation 17 states The paper, which was based on parent surveys recruited from explicitly anti-trans or trans-skeptical websites and forums. We could move those citations up to the lead if you want, but MOS:LEADCITE would suggest that it's unnecessary.

I don't agree with changing She conducted a study by collecting 256 responses from an online survey, which was not randomly distributed to Her study was based on 256 responses to an online survey of parents. That is very much not neutral. The non random distribution of the sampling and its inherent methodological flaws formed a large part of the scientific criticism of the paper by Littman's peers.

On the {{citation needed}} template for More than three-quarters of the parents surveyed had rejected their child's transgender identity. That was already cited to Restar's paper which states that Notably, 76.5% believed that their child’s trans identification is not correct.

The entire article seems extremely long for a hypothesis I'm afraid that's a misunderstanding, similar to the one that Emmentalist made when posting to NPOVN. This isn't strictly an article about Littman's hypothesis, it's an article about the controversy surrounding it. Littman's paper and hypothesis in and of themselves aren't notable, what is notable is the strong reactions to it both inside and outside academia. The length of the article reflects the breadth and depth of coverage of the controversy and outright rejection of ROGD by all mainstream medical organisations within the US. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:19, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion to Improve Article Body

The lead to this article is very carefully crafted with considerable attention. I want to talk about the article itself.

My main critique, reading through the article, is that everything is stated multiple times.

Imagine a movie came out, and the filming was really dark and hard to see. And our Wikipedia article had a section with criticism (not uncommon), and we said:

• Newspaper reviewers complained the film was too dark and hard to see.
• Academics noted the film was too dark and hard to see.
• Fans complained the film was too dark and hard to see.
• Historians noted the film was too dark and hard to see.

I feel like that's this article right now. It's not focused on what the criticism is, but giving a voice to each group making the same criticism. So it's extremely repetitive. Big picture, I am thinking:

History

Original publication

Initial Academic Feedback

Correction

Main Criticism

Sampling Methods

Websites Used

Concern about political use

(additional breakdown by topic)

Further Research

I would take out the "terminology" section - the information there would merge nicely into each section in the History. Focus that on the academic "story" of publication, review, correction. This is 99% there with just moving a bit of the existing text around. (I would take out some of Littman's history under Original Publication, and the sentence about the slight alternative name in the Terminology section).

After that, instead of breaking up all the Criticism by "Group who provided the feedback" - break it up by TOPIC of the feedback. That's going to really improve the flow of the article, because we can reference every group already listed here, without repeating the same feedback over and over. Same level of importance, less repetition.

It would make the article more enjoyable to read. The lead is pretty tight; let's tighten up the rest. If the rest of the article read more smoothly, people might let a bit of detail in the lead go, as it's so well covered in the article.

Denaar (talk) 21:07, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I made the history section and did not remove any text or re-write to improve the flow. I still think under History, remove extra info about Littman's background; it's not really relevant. Trying to do re-do the Critism might be too difficult at this point, but "Anti-LGBTQ groups" subheading should be changed, the two groups listed a Watch Dog Groups and a Pro-LGBTQ groups. The rest of the subheadings are "who is commenting" so it's out of place. Denaar (talk) 03:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I spent time making it flow, and no longer feel anything needs to be removed. The section "Initial Critique" could be called something else like "Main Points of Critique", depending on what the intent is. But the idea was to get the article flowing like the lead, so future editors can feel more confident in moving things from the lead to the article if they choose. Denaar (talk) 04:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

At this point, I think the structure of the article is pretty good, I tried to keep as much as possible and only trim some repetition - BUT - I left all the criticism in and we have a wide variety of it. Hopefully someone can look at the lead and think about if any of it could be moved into the body. Denaar (talk) 05:05, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Social influences in the formation of gender identity

The gist of this article is that there is no scientific support for ROGD. Some readers might conclude from this that the formation of a gender identity is not subject to social influence. In fact, the current fourth paragraph denies “that the onset of transgender identity among young people is influenced by social contacts online or in their real lives.” (This is not supported by any cited authority). I propose the following paragraph, which makes clear that there can be such influences:

Even if ROGD is not a distinct phenomenon, that doesn’t negate that social influences can be involved in the formation of a transgender identity, according to psychologist Erica Anderson, the first transgender president of the U.S. arm of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH). "To flatly say there couldn’t be any social influence in formation of gender identity flies in the face of reality", Anderson said. "Teenagers influence each other". [2] "A fair number of kids are getting into [considering a transgender identity] because it’s trendy", she told the Washington Post. "I think in our haste to be supportive, we’re missing that element. Kids are all about being accepted by their peers. It's trendy for professionals, too."[3]

What problem does anybody have with adding the new paragraph and removing the unsupported statement to the contrary? Swood100 (talk) 00:04, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Very likely it is merely a turn of phrase on your part, but asking "What problem does anybody have with [my opinion]", seems to presuppose the opinions of other people as the "problem", at least, if they disagree. But, let's set that aside as possibly infelicitous wording, and move on to the meat of your comment. I would reject the proposal for two reasons, namely:

1. even if it's accurate and WP:DUE, this is the wrong article for it; i.e, it's a venue problem. Per WP:Article title policy, this article is about the controversy surrounding ROGD, not the controversy (if there is one) surrounding the formation of gender identity. There is altogether enough controversy about the title topic, without trying to rope in other controversies that don't belong here. If what you say is correct, then try adding it to the gender identity article. (Not saying I endorse that plan, just that that is the proper venue for it.)
2. Merely finding one source that appears to support a given point of view isn't sufficient to add it to an article; you'd have to determine whether that is a majority viewpoint or not, before you could add it, at least in Wikipedia's voice. That goes for any article, and even more so for articles under special conditions because they are designated as contentious topics.

Your concern as stated in your second sentence strikes me as slightly odd:

Some readers might conclude from this that the formation of a gender identity is not subject to social influence.

I don't think we need to be concerned with what readers learning about the ROGD controversy might think about any number of other, related topics when reading about this one. That's one of the reasons we provide wikilinks, so a reader can find out more detail about a topic they'd like to learn about, or a word they're unsure of, one click away. If we worried about what opinions readers might form about related issues because they didn't follow the link on some expression they didn't understand, every article would blow up in size, become unreadable, and probably lead to even more confusion than naive readers have now about such complex topics. Let the gender identity article deal with that question, if indeed there is some question that needs addressing. Mathglot (talk) 00:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)x

Would you say, then, that the current text, denying “that the onset of transgender identity among young people is influenced by social contacts online or in their real lives” also does not belong in this article? Swood100 (talk) 00:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

That whole section is unsourced - I agree it should be removed. One problem is the lead needs to be a summary of the article. You don't have to source everything in the lead if - it's not controversial in any way - and it's well sourced in the article below. But people tend to forget the "if it's not controversial" and "if it's well sourced directly in the article". Denaar (talk) 00:55, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

That whole section is unsourced - I agree it should be removed.

Are you saying it should be removed from the article because it is unsourced or because it is off-topic? Why is the question of social influence in the formation of gender identity not relevant to the topic of ROGD? Swood100 (talk) 01:06, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I just removed the section because it's unsourced, also updated some of the language to match the sources we had. As I said below - I think the quotes you added were fine, but they might work better in the body then in the lead (the first section of the article). Check WP:Lead for guidance - it should summarize the most important part of the article any any controversies - longer quotations usually go in the body of the article, rather than the summary/lead section. Denaar (talk) 01:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Where do you think it would go? I guess one distinction is that ROGD contains the element of rapidity and Anderson is talking about social influences without that element being mentioned. In any case, Anderson either can be distinguished from ROGD or it is presented as an alternative viewpoint. Apparently, Marci Bowers, current president of WPATH, has a similar viewpoint:

“As for this ROGD thing,” Bowers said, “I think there probably are people who are influenced. There is a little bit of ‘Yeah, that’s so cool. Yeah, I kind of want to do that too.’”[4].

Is there anybody who can articulate a reason why Anderson and Bowers should be excluded from this article? Swood100 (talk) 02:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

So I've looked over the content Denaar removed earlier, and I have to disagree with that removal. That content is adequately supported by citations in the article's body as it was summarising the content of the academic and professional commentary sections. I don't see it as overly controversial enough to actually warrant a citation in the lead per MOS:LEADCITE, as this isn't a BLP, and to bring up every citation from those sections would leave us with a overcite problem. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

If the content removed by Denaar is relevant then why aren't the Anderson quotes relevant? Swood100 (talk) 15:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I thought it was a good addition. The revert says neither source mentions RODG, but the same quote is included here with it: [5]. Denaar (talk) 00:40, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

It's an opinion piece, and even it doesn't make any explicit link between ROGD and Anderson's quote. I think the case for inclusion here is flimsy. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:05, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

The quotes are not from opinion pieces, they are from interviews. But even if they were opinion pieces, Anderson is a practicing psychologist and former president of the U.S. branch of WPATH. That makes her an expert and the opinion of an expert is notable. The above quote from Marci Bowers uses the term “ROGD” but why do you say that the use of that term is necessary? ROGD is about social influences on the development of gender identity. How are the Anderson quotes off-topic? Swood100 (talk) 16:10, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

This proposal is substantially the same content that I removed earlier for original research issues. Of the two citations that were in that edit, neither mentioned ROGD by name or acronym. The comments by Anderson on some sort of social influence on the development of gender incongruence in youth are off-topic for this article, and seem out of step with recent independent research. With the sources that have been provided, there is no way to include this in a policy compliant manner. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Of the two citations that were in that edit, neither mentioned ROGD by name or acronym.

There’s also this comment from practicing physician Marci Bowers, current president of WPATH:

“As for this ROGD thing,” Bowers said, “I think there probably are people who are influenced. There is a little bit of ‘Yeah, that’s so cool. Yeah, I kind of want to do that too.’”[6]

But is it really necessary that the person specifically use the identifier “ROGD”? The following is from the abstract of the original Littman study:

Academics have raised questions about the role of social media in the development of gender dysphoria. The purpose of this study was to collect data about parents’ observations, experiences, and perspectives about their adolescent and young adult (AYA) children showing signs of an apparent sudden or rapid onset of gender dysphoria that began during or after puberty, and develop hypotheses about factors that may contribute to the onset and/or expression of gender dysphoria among this demographic group.

This topic is squarely about social influences on the development of gender identity. Can you explain why the absence of the term “ROGD” should be relevant?

and seem out of step with recent independent research

Are you saying that coming to a conclusion different from recent independent research is cause to exclude it from an article? Furthermore, the article you cite says this:

Specifically, rapid onset gender dysphoria is hypothesized as a phenomenon in youth with gender dysphoria emerging at or after puberty, socially influenced through peer contagion, and with contributing factors including poor mental health, neurodevelopmental disabilities, parent-child conflict, and maladaptive coping strategies.

The supplied Anderson quotes directly concern whether gender dysphoria is “socially influenced through peer contagion.” Why, then, are they off-topic?

With the sources that have been provided, there is no way to include this in a policy compliant manner.

Can you explain this? Do the quotes serve to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources? Are there facts or allegations for which no reliable, published sources exist? Swood100 (talk) 15:54, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

There’s also this comment from practicing physician Marci Bowers TheFP is not a reliable source, and as such we cannot use it in an article.

But is it really necessary that the person specifically use the identifier “ROGD”? It is necessary that the source makes this link. We can't do it ourselves per the no original research policy.

Are you saying that coming to a conclusion different from recent independent research is cause to exclude it from an article? No. The reason we can't include Anderson's comment is because it is off-topic for this article.

Why, then, are they off-topic? Because this article's topic is on the controversy surrounding the ROGD theory. It is not an article about how gender incongruence develops in youth. When Anderson made that quote, she did not mention ROGD by name or acronym. We cannot and must not make an assumption that her comments were about ROGD.

Can you explain this? I did in my last reply. The wikilink for "policy compliant manner" is to our policy on original research, which we are forbidden to do in the article space.

Do the quotes serve to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources? The quotes, as I've said above, seem to be about a different topic entirely, the development of gender incongruence in youth.

Are there facts or allegations for which no reliable, published sources exist? I fail to see how this question relates to what I've said. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: TheFP is not a reliable source, and as such we cannot use it in an article.

Is The Economist a reliable source?

In 2018 Lisa Littman, a researcher, was hounded and lost her job as a consultant after coining the term “rapid onset gender dysphoria” (rogd) to describe the social contagion of trans-identification among teens, mostly girls. Dr Bowers appeared to acknowledge the existence of “this rogd thing” as she called it. “I think there probably are people who are influenced. There is a little bit of ‘Yeah, that’s so cool. Yeah, I kind of want to do that too.’” [7]

Isn’t Bowers here describing the same thing that Anderson is talking about? And why is the text that Denaar removed relevant to this article? That text concerned whether "the onset of transgender identity among young people is influenced by social contacts online or in their real lives." How is that different from what Anderson is talking about? Swood100 (talk) 20:40, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

The Economist is generally a reliable source, but it's dependent on context. This particular piece seems largely to be an opinion article, despite the lack of a byline, so would be subject to WP:RSOPINION.

While it looks like Bowers was discussing ROGD, I would not speculate on whether Anderson was. To do so would be original research, which is forbidden by policy.

The content that Denaar removed was a paragraph summarising content already present throughout the article body. The content in the body is explicitly linked to ROGD by the sources, and is sourced overwhelmingly to academic criticism of the theory. The difference here is that the content you're seeking to add is not explicitly linked to ROGD, and is in general sourced only to media publications many of which are not not reliably sources or otherwise subject to WP:RSOPINION. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

The Economist is generally a reliable source, but it's dependent on context. This particular piece seems largely to be an opinion article, despite the lack of a byline, so would be subject to WP:RSOPINION.

So in other words, it’s reliable as to Bowers’ opinion but that opinion can’t be presented in the article as fact, right? Did you think I wanted to present her opinion as fact?

The content that Denaar removed was a paragraph summarising content already present throughout the article body

So you’re saying that the article currently contains content denying that "the onset of transgender identity among young people is influenced by social contacts” and that this question is germane to the topic. Nevertheless, when Anderson asserts that there is “social influence in formation of gender identity” this is not germane to the topic. There appears to be a contradiction here, don’t you agree? Swood100 (talk) 22:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

So you’re saying that No, I'm not saying that. Please stop putting words in other people's mouths.

There appears to be a contradiction here, don’t you agree? No, because I do not agree with you think I said. I'll state this one last time, there is nothing explicitly linking the comments made by Anderson and the topic of this article. Nowhere in the sources you originally presented did Anderson mention ROGD by name or acronym. We cannot assume or infer that Anderson was discussing the ROGD theory or its associated controversy when making those remarks, because that is forbidden by policy.

Conversely, the content that is present in the article is explicitly linked to ROGD by the sources that are cited for it. The citations that most directly support "social influence in formation" bit that you are quoting are all ([8], [9], [10]) explicit criticisms of the ROGD hypothesis. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:18, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

So, any problem with the following?

According to transgender physician Marci Bowers, who is the current president of WPATH, social influences do play a part. "As for this ROGD thing," Bowers said, "I think there probably are people who are influenced. There is a little bit of 'Yeah, that’s so cool. Yeah, I kind of want to do that too.'"[11]

Swood100 (talk) 00:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Leaving aside the double ended MOS:CURRENT, as Bowers made the comments prior to becoming WPATH's president, and will become outdated in 2024 when Asa Radix takes over the role, yes I would object to this. This doesn't appear to meet due weight, as no other reliable sources seem to include mention of this comment. Even among unreliable sources, which never count for assessing weight, only a couple have included. These are comments that Bowers made to an unreliable publication (TheFP), and almost no-one of note seems to have picked up on it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:37, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this looks undue. XOR'easter (talk) 16:42, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Opinion pieces of individual academics quoted in popular media publications don't belong in a medical topic article. Particularly when the quote is regarding tangential material and not on the actual subject of the article in question. Furthermore, I have reverted Denaar's removal. The lead is a summary of the body and the body is properly referenced. I would expect long-term editors to be aware of this very basic structure and formatting of Wikipedia articles. If said sources are strongly desired to be in the lede as well, they can be extended, though that seems pointless per the already stated purpose of ledes being a summary. The over-referencing of the lede is already an issue in this article. Silverseren^C 03:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Particularly when the quote is regarding tangential material and not on the actual subject of the article in question. Furthermore, I have reverted Denaar's removal. The lead is a summary of the body and the body is properly referenced.

You say that the quote, which concerns social influences in the formation of gender identity is tangential and off-topic. Yet, you restore this text:

the onset of transgender identity among young people is influenced by social contacts online or in their real lives

thereby asserting that the same thing is not off-topic. How do you reconcile these?

Opinion pieces of individual academics quoted in popular media publications don't belong in a medical topic article.

These are not opinion pieces. The Anderson quotes come from interviews of a transgender practicing psychologist who specializes in this question and who is the former president of a highly regarded organization that specializes in transgender issues. Wearing either hat her comments are noteworthy, are they not? Swood100 (talk) 15:09, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Please focus on the content of the article, and not the behavior of other editors, when discussing the page. "I would expect long-term editors to be aware of this very basic structure and formatting of Wikipedia articles" is discussing another editor's behavior. Denaar (talk) 21:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't disagree with one point you made, albeit not for the same reason. Oversimplifying: this is not a medical topic article as far as its primary focus, it's an article about a controversy, and to that extent, it's fine to quote opinions, with intext attribution, to illustrate the main ideas on all sides of the controversy (even if they are nutbag wackos, if they represent a significant minority among the controversants). It's like talking about any non-accepted, even fringe or extreme fringe theories: as long as you are compliant with WP:DUEWEIGHT and WP:INTEXT, this can be done. It's a bit tricky, because you have to adhere strictly to WP:DUE, and articles like this are a honeypot for all sorts of warriors who want to boldly or subtly push their views, and it's subject to abuse by advocates trying to sneak stuff in through the side door the way that, say, Young Earth creationists try to do with their "Teach the Controversy" approach. But if you can juggle all the relevant policies and guidelines and keep them in mind while you edit, probably foremost among them WP:NPOV, then, yes, it's possible to add opinions. But be prepared for a minefield, and don't get frustrated if there are multiple reversions, first for one reason, then for another. Editing here is difficult for everyone, even for senior editors with lots of experience in contentious, gender-related topics, and this article is a prime example of that. So everyone should be really patient, max out your WP:AGF, comb through the policy pages again, and see if there's a consensus to be had here about anything or not. Mathglot (talk) 07:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Unsourced Lead information is incorrect

We have two lines with a "citation needed" from 2022 that no one has addressed. The lead says "Medical and other journals have published results"... describing one study in one journal. "Others questioned whether self-reported transgender identity was, in fact, increasing." - is one study. Correcting these lines, and adding a source, per WP:leadcite is the correct course of action. Denaar (talk) 21:29, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Per that same section: The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Hist9600 (talk) 21:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Both Silver seren and myself have addressed the {{citation needed}} tag, where we've both said that this part of the paragraph is summarising multiple points throughout the article's body, both in our edit summaries and here on this talk page. I have also said that this is not controversial enough content to meet MOS:LEADCITE, and that to bring enough of the citations up from the article's body would lead us in an overcite situation. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:45, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia Policy: WP:TALKDONTREVERT: "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view." Consensus is not a vote. You say you have a consensus of two, but that is not what consensus means. Even if you feel that is the case, there are three editors, the original person who added the tag @Quisqualis, @Swood100, and I - as well as every editor in between that has modified this page without removing the tag. Per MOS:CITELEAD "Editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material." The problems that need to be addressed are: Problem 1. The statements aren't accurate summaries of the articles. 2. We should include references so it's easy to locate the text they are referring too - it's impossible right now because the statements are inaccurate. Denaar (talk) 16:21, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll chime in to concur that the text in question is an ordinary and accurate (though doubtless tweakable) summary of the body text. XOR'easter (talk) 16:48, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Also agree with this. To meet sufficient criteria for a citation in the lead, a strong reason would be needed, and there would need to be consensus among the editors for providing that citation in the lead. I don't see any such strong reason, nor has one been argued for effectively. Hist9600 (talk) 17:14, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Since consensus is not a vote, can you explain exactly how you think it is ordinary and accurate? You haven't responded to the substance of my complaint, just that you "don't agree" - that is not a part of the consensus building process WP:Consensus so it's not very helpful. Denaar (talk) 17:40, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

For starters, you wrote that it is describing one study in one journal. It's evidently talking about the Archives of Sexual Behavior, Pediatrics and Journal of Pediatrics items at the very least; there's also material in the publications in the Journal of LGBT Youth and Sexualities pertinent to the "identifiable as a distinct phenomenon" bit. XOR'easter (talk) 18:12, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

How are the opinions of Marci Bowers on a transgender subject WP:UNDUE?

"As for this ROGD thing," Bowers said, "I think there probably are people who are influenced. There is a little bit of 'Yeah, that’s so cool. Yeah, I kind of want to do that too.'"[12][13]

Marci Bowers is the current president of WPATH and a world-renowned surgeon. Her opinions on this subject are reported by The Economist and The Australian, both major sources. How can her views on a transgender subject be WP:UNDUE? She's president of WPATH for crying out loud! Swood100 (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, if we're going to put her opinion in the article, surely we'd put in what she says on her website about it, right?

Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria is a largely discredited acronym referring to those transgender persons who appear to ‘come out of nowhere’, skeptics attributing their choice to transition as nothing more than social contagion. It is a term used by conservatives and naysayers to deny, discredit and de-legitimize transgender persons and their search for identity as being a short term, impulsive act influenced by others.

(Also the Economist source doesn't appear to contain that quote, and the Australian one is behind a paywall.)

The TL;DR here is that it's very unclear that that quote is even a good representation of what Marci Bowers believes, let alone the field as a whole. Loki (talk) 19:17, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Both The Economist and The Australian are references to the interview described in The Free Press. Here’s the full quote from The Economist, in an article titled “Opinion on the use of puberty blockers in America is turning – Even members of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health have some concerns”:

In 2018 Lisa Littman, a researcher, was hounded and lost her job as a consultant after coining the term “rapid onset gender dysphoria” (rogd) to describe the social contagion of trans-identification among teens, mostly girls. Dr Bowers appeared to acknowledge the existence of “this rogd thing” as she called it. “I think there probably are people who are influenced. There is a little bit of ‘Yeah, that’s so cool. Yeah, I kind of want to do that too.’” In some cases, she said, girls with eating disorders were being diagnosed with gender dysphoria, “then they see you for one visit, and then they recommend testosterone.”

You can find the quote in The Australian by Googling: "I think there probably are people who are influenced." In addition, there is this source:

Bowers and Anderson are both “seeing more adolescent girls who seem to fit the ROGD description, and they are concerned that currently sloppy healthcare work may lead to more regrets and detransitioners." https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/transgender-controversy/

The TL;DR here is that it's very unclear that that quote is even a good representation of what Marci Bowers believes, let alone the field as a whole.

First, the quote does not purport to represent the field as a whole. These sources represent the viewpoints of Marci Bowers and Erica Anderson, which are “significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources,” albeit minority viewpoints.

On her website Bowers refers to ROGD as a “largely discredited acronym…used by conservatives and naysayers to deny, discredit and de-legitimize transgender persons and their search for identity as being a short term, impulsive act influenced by others.” Her objection is the use of this term to discredit all transgender people. However, the quotes above show that Bowers and Anderson both believe that there are some adolescent girls who fit the description. If you want to also include the statement from her website I would have no objection to that. But you are trying to leave the impression that there is no disagreement at all on this question, and that is clearly false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swood100 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

When we discussed this a couple of days ago, I had the suspicion that the original article by TheFP had been discussed here before. And sure enough, it was discussed in November 2022. A lot of what has been said has been rehashing the discussion from November, right down to the same sources and talking points. However, from a comment in the November 2022 discussion, it seems that Shrier took Bowers' comments during the interview out of context. As such I would be exceptionally hesitant to include it here.

As for why it's undue, I would defer back to the comments made a couple of days ago on a different version of this content. As I said previously, the lack of other reliable sources including or summarising this quote are what make this undue. That the comments originally appeared in an interview that was taken out of context by the interviewer and original source author (Shrier) only compound this. As things stand right now with regards to sourcing, there is no way any version of this content could be included. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:55, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

And the Skeptic source is just an opinion column that points right back to TheFP; relying upon it would be laundering misrepresentation. XOR'easter (talk) 20:58, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, Marci Bowers has had problems with people taking her words out of context or misrepresenting her views. Enough so that she has had to refute mischaracterizations and post about that on her website. I'm extremely skeptical of attempts to use quotes from her to endorse ROGD ideas, when she has denounced the ROGD theory. Hist9600 (talk) 23:48, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, my feeling is that if someone has repeatedly said one thing, pulling out one quote saying the opposite is probably giving that individual quote WP:UNDUE weight. Due weight means covering things proportionately; the proposed focus on this quote gives it disproportionate weight in terms of representing Bowers' views. --Aquillion (talk) 03:52, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Removing primary source studies

I have edited to remove the two primary source studies/data on ROGD. They are not appropriate to cite her per WP:MEDRS, or even the non medical WP:USEPRIMARY. I said they should be replaced with secondary sources, books or reviews when the time comes. This was reverted by Firefangledfeathers who claimed they can be included because of WP:PARITY and the fringe nature of the theory. However, parity would suggest that the already included critiques of the original Littman study (e.g. Restar, Florence) are already sufficient responses to contentious nature of the study. There is no indication that including follow up primary data studies is necessary. It was then reverted a second time by Silver Seren who incorrectly accused me of blanking and vandalism.

In addition, Littman has criticised the first study, and Turban et al. has other critiques. I would not support including the critique from Littman, but if you're going to include the primary source studies you cannot be inconsistent here. It's appropriate to leave it to a review, textbook or book. Wikipedia does not rely on primary studies or data to "debunk" ideas, they are not simply reliable. Wikipedia is not an index of studies. I would be interested to see what additional editors think so I'll tag @Crossroads @Markworthen. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:54, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Why ping those two editors? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:30, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Because they are very experienced editors of psychology articles (Mark is also a psychiatrist psychologist) and I was reverted a second time for an improper reason. It's better to provide some reasoning here and assume good faith on my part. Zenomonoz (talk) 00:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I responded on the conduct matter at your talk page. On the content issue, I think that you're saying that it would be inconsistent to include a peer-reviewed study (like Bauer) without also including a letter to the editor (the Littman you linked). I'm not seeing it. I'm saying it's inconsistent to to cite and summarize a primary peer-reviewed study (the original Littman) and a slew of lower quality sources (news articles, blogposts, etc.) and exclude some of the highest-quality sources available. I think there's a balance to be struck between the two guidelines here (FRINGE and MEDRS) and I'm not predisposed against the idea that the current text could be shortened or otherwise adjusted. MEDRS does caution that when using primary sources we should afford "minimal weight, only describe conclusions made by the source, and describe these findings so clearly that any editor can check the sourcing without the need for specialist knowledge". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:47, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I think that you're saying that it would be inconsistent to include a peer-reviewed study (like Bauer) without also including a letter to the editor (the Littman you linked). I did not say that, I said neither should be included. Citing the two studies as evidence against ROGD is the equivalent to citing Littman as evidence of ROGD. We should not cite primary source studies until they are better evaluated in secondary (preferably academic) sources. Zenomonoz (talk) 01:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I may have misunderstood you. When you said "if you're going to include the primary source studies you cannot be inconsistent here", what did you mean we should do in order to be consistent, if we're going to include the primary source studies? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I have already stated neither should be included, I will not have a back and forth on this. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:18, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

In most circumstances, I would agree that MEDRS would require us to cite further up the MEDASSESS pyramid. However, this is one of the rare occasions where that is not yet possible. There are no systematic reviews or meta-analyses of this topic yet. With regards to peer-reviewed literature, the sum total so far published consists of Littman's original study, Restar's methodological critique, Bauer, et al., Turban et al. 2022, Diaz and Bailey's retracted paper, and Turban et al. 2023.

In this circumstance, MEDRS allows for us to cite primary sources, provided that our text that relies on primary sources should usually have minimal weight, only describe conclusions made by the source, and describe these findings so clearly that any editor can check the sourcing without the need for specialist knowledge. If and when a review paper of the literature is published, which I would expect in another couple of years once there's more content for the authors of such a paper to review, then we can look at the content we have and remove or amend as necessary.

There is also the WP:FRINGE factor to consider here, as Firefangledfeathers has noted. Littman's paper is right on that borderline of fringe content, as born out by the lack of independent replication of her findings. There is a balancing act between the aspects of MEDRS that allow for us to include primary sources in the absence of secondary sources, and what is required per WP:PARITY. Currently I think we're balancing those requirements reasonably well with regards to the peer-reviewed literature and don't see any immediate reason to remove those sections, as doing so would significantly upset the balance of the article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I am reading the guideline, and it does seem to apply, so you're on the right track: "Primary sources should not be cited with intent of "debunking", contradicting, or countering conclusions made by secondary sources. Synthesis of published material advancing a position is original research, and Wikipedia is not a venue for open research. Controversies or uncertainties in medicine should be supported by reliable secondary sources describing the varying viewpoints. Primary sources should not be aggregated or presented without context in order to undermine proportionate representation of opinion in a field. If material can be supported by either primary or secondary sources – the secondary sources should be used. Primary sources may be presented together with secondary sources." I have only reviewed some of the content on this page, I have not checked the sources outside what I was working on, I thought these were sourced from secondary sources about the studies - not the studies themselves. I know I had to replace some direct study-citations with secondary source citations when I was cleaning up the article. Denaar (talk) 11:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Which secondary sources do you feel are being contradicted here? Name them specifically. The entire point of WP:PARITY is that there are no secondary sources supporting this topic that can be contradicted; that means that we should rely on the best sources available, which are the ones Zenomonoz inappropriately attempted to remove. --Aquillion (talk) 13:42, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

• No, WP:PARITY definitely applies. The purpose of PARITY is that editors can't present some fringe science like this and then demand that studies disputing it be excluded because its fringe nature means coverage is limited; the other sources you mentioned aren't sufficient because they don't examine its claims as directly (you implicitly acknowledge this when you say that they should be replaced with secondary sources, books or reviews when the time comes - on a fringe topic, that additional coverage clearly may never appear, and either way, leaving an article in a state that implies that the topic has more acceptance than it actually does is misleading. Your removals were therefore totally inappropriate. Also, your pings are clear-cut WP:CANVASSing in that you are plainly pinging only editors you believe will support you, while disregarding numerous other editors on this page who have edited extensively about the topic and therefore would likewise have been pinged in a broad request for additional input whose intent was not to canvass. --Aquillion (talk) 13:42, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

  As I have already highlighted (and now other users too), the inclusion of follow up primary source studies/data is inappropriate given the critiques are available for us. As for canvassing, do not include user behaviour disputes on the talk pages of the article, those are reserved for user talk pages. @Denaar has already removed content regarding it, and may wish to do it again (including this comment from me). Thank you. Zenomonoz (talk) 04:57, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Comment and suggestions

In my earlier Wikipedian days, I sometimes had a tendency to swamp an article with primary references to emphasize my position's vast superiority. "But look at all this research you Neanderthals!" More experienced editors educated me, and I came to understand that the old adage "less is more" applied. Wikipedia visitors click away from long articles filled with prolix prose. On the other hand, clear, concise articles attract visitors and facilitate learning. This article suffers from "long and tedious" illness. Therefore, I favor tightening prose, copy editing for clarity and conciseness, and excising unnecessary references. Toward that end, I offer these observations (opinions) and suggestions, focusing on the first paragraph:

Solid, reliable references that substantiate the article text: WPATH Global Board of Directors (September 4, 2018). "WPATH Position on "Rapid-Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD)"" (PDF), and World Professional Association for Transgender Health. "ROGD Statement". Coalition for the Advancement & Application of Psychological Science.

Probably [edited on 12 Aug 2023] a solid, reliable reference that substantiates the article text (I have not read the article yet - I ordered it via interlibrary loan) [edited 12 Aug 2023 - see below]: Ashley, Florence (July 2020). "A critical commentary on 'rapid-onset gender dysphoria'". The Sociological Review. 68 (4): 779–799.

Suggest removal primarily because the references are unnecessary, and secondarily for other (specified) reasons: Bauer, Greta R.; Lawson, Margaret L.; Metzger, Daniel L. (November 15, 2021). "Do Clinical Data From Transgender Adolescents Support the Phenomenon of "Rapid-Onset Gender Dysphoria"?". The Journal of Pediatrics. 243: 224–227.e2. [Primary source, and it has methodological problems: research design flaws and unwarranted conclusions drawn from the data.]; Ferreyra-Carroll, Lilith (21 October 2021). "A state of collapse: Trans healthcare in Ireland is a national emergency". Gay Community News (Dublin). [Sensationalist language.]

(Note: I am a clinical psychologist, not a psychiatrist.) Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 23:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

P.S. In my professional life I have enjoyed providing psychological care for transfolk since 1987. In my personal political life I advocate for the rights of trans people, e.g., protecting fundamental human and civil rights, including a right to trans-affirmative medical care. But we are not talking about human rights here. We are talking about writing good encyclopedia articles. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 23:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I just read the Sociological Review article (see above). It is a well-written lit review and essay (an editorial some might say, although I think it's more than that) published in a reliable source. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 17:55, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

The article that was published in the Sociological Review is available here: A critical commentary on 'rapid-onset gender dysphoria'. Hist9600 (talk) 18:32, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Potential new secondary source

This was recently published in Scientific American:

• https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/evidence-undermines-rapid-onset-gender-dysphoria-claims/

I don't think there is anything much actually new here but it might help to support our existing coverage using an additional high quality secondary source. Also, it includes a couple of nice punchy quotes which might be worth including as they express core ideas about this topic in a concise and easily understood way:

1. "To even say it’s a hypothesis at this point, based on the paucity of research on this, I think is a real stretch," (Eli Coleman, former president of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health)
2. “It is not rapid-onset gender dysphoria. It’s rapid-onset parental discovery.” (Diane Ehrensaft, director of mental health at the University of California, San Francisco, Child and Adolescent Gender Center).

--DanielRigal (talk) 17:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

For reference, someone added it to the article by this edit under "External links". LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 07:16, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, nothing new. But that Ehrensaft quotation really captures the essence and distills a lot of the different criticisms into one trenchant comment, and might merit inclusion in the professional commentary section as an opinion, which is probably the majority opinion of critics. With in-text attribution, of course. Mathglot (talk) 08:48, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

It seems like a useful source to me, helpful as a summary, and for some quotes. Hist9600 (talk) 14:56, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Common criticism and randomness

One of the three legs of the gold standard for clinical trials is "randomized", and I seem to recall from my reading about ROGD back in the day that one of the main criticisms was that the population was essentially self-selected, so the opposite of randomized, but that isn't mentioned in the article. If we have a good RS for that, it probably should be. Mathglot (talk) 11:37, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I think that's covered under Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy#Academic by the WPATH cite. Our article summarizes it as:

The study's focus on parents of transgender youth recruited from communities with skepticism towards gender affirming care presents difficulty in establishing social influence as a possible factor in development of gender dysphoria.

We could definitely expand on this point with more sources, though. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:49, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

As far as I read it, we mention that several times:

The author, Arjee Restar, argued that Littman's study was fatally methodologically flawed, beginning with the choice to sample exclusively from users of three websites "known for telling parents not to believe their child is transgender",

In 2022, the eighth edition of WPATH's Standards of Care (SOC-8)—a publication providing clinical guidance for healthcare professionals working with transgender and gender diverse individuals—criticized the study due to its methodological flaws. The study's focus on parents of transgender youth recruited from communities with skepticism towards gender affirming care presents difficulty in establishing social influence as a possible factor

The encyclopedia further states that bias appears to be present at every stage of the study, including its basic premise, the absence of random sampling, self-selection bias in the recruitment process, and the data collection procedure, which was described as "fundamentally flawed in a number of critical ways".

[emphasis mine] Loki (talk) 06:50, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you're both right; thanks for pointing out these quotes. Having read our article umpteen times, I got lazy and just skimmed instead of reading carefully and obviously went too fast because obviously the quotes you both provided make the point whether they use the word or not, and in at least one case they even used it. Sorry for being lazy, and thanks again! Mathglot (talk) 06:55, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Not a problem. Happens to all of us at some point. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)