Talk:Genspect/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Health Liberation Now - Reliable Source?

Even though Genspect complained we used Health Liberation Now as a source when we didn't, I believe that it's a valid source and would help fill in gaps in the article. Specifically, their wonderful report on the state of anti-trans conversion therapy verifiably (all statements are sourced) illustrates Genspect's links to religious conversion therapy groups.

Health Liberation Now has been quoted extensively in reliable sources, and has been covered and is considered notable in and of themselves for their work in countering anti-trans groups. Recently Xtra did a profile on them here. Generally, I see a lot of media consensus they track anti-trans groups and are reliable subject matter experts in that area and haven't seen any reliable sources arguing otherwise or questioning their reporting.

Returning to the aforementioned report report, they've noted:

Speaking on “gender issues” alongside James Esses of Thoughtful Therapists, on May 21st, 2022 O’Malley appeared as a workshop speaker at the FET Annual Conference in the UK.[81] An evangelical Christian group, FET has repeatedly lobbied against women’s, children’s and LGBTQ+ welfare, as well as having connections to the anti-gender movement through their appearance at the May 2017 World Congress of Families in Budapest, Hungary.[82] The 2017 World Congress of Families has been described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a “who’s who on the anti-LGBT and anti-choice Christian Right”[83] encompassing a mixture of legislators and religious activists, with several prominent members playing key roles in funding the push against reproductive and LGBTQ+ rights in Europe.[84]

O’Malley’s workshop at the FET Annual Conference is not the first of such collaborations, nor will it be the last. On November 21st, 2021, the day after Genspect’s ROGD Conference, O’Malley appeared with Bob McCoskrie of Family First NZ.[93] Another Christian-led lobby group with significant international connections pushing conversion practices under the guise of “therapeutic choice”, Family First NZ was also represented at the World Congress of Families in 2017.[85] The 2021 panel of O’Malley and McCoskrie was promoted onto Genspect’s Twitter, tying her collaborations with them into Genspect’s formal operations.[94] Yet this was not the first time she had worked with them. Previously she joined Family First NZ’s push against Aotearoa’s pending conversion therapy ban under the banner of their ex-LGBTQ+ project Free to Live NZ (Figure 10).[95] Alongside her stood the forces of Laura Haynes, representing the IFTCC;[96] Erin Brewer, then representing Partners for Ethical Care (PEC) “on behalf of New Zealand children, primarily, who are suffering from gender dysphoria”;[97] and Family First NZ’s own testimony

In addition to their direct collaborations, Genspect has promoted or directed their members to parent resources from anti-trans conversion practice advocacy groups, of both secular and conservative Christian varieties. Archive records show that both PEC and Advocates Protecting Children (APC), a project spin-off also co-founded by Erin Brewer, have been listed on Genspect’s resource list as “helpful groups”,[106] though APC has since been removed from the list. Erin Brewer also has ties to Van Meter, having interviewed him for her YouTube channel back in 2020.[107]

In their “helpful groups” list Genspect also promotes Child & Parental Rights Campaign (CPR-C), a conservative Christian firm whose co-founding member Mary E. McAlister has worked as part of evangelical group Liberty Counsel to target conversion therapy bans on behalf of Christian conversion therapists Joseph Nicolosi, David Pickup, and Christopher Rosik.[67] Representing CPR-C, McAlister has also been featured in the supposedly-investigative Christian documentary “The Mind Polluters”, which posits that powerful LGBTQ+ organizations are infiltrating school systems to groom children with pornography.[110] CPR-C cites Quentin Van Meter in their 2020 School Resource Guide as part of a rather hefty citation nest of other notable figures, including but not limited to Lisa Littman, Kenneth Zucker, Susan Bradley, Paul Hruz, Michael Laidlaw, and Michelle Cretella.[111]

They also published an account of Genspect's ROGD awareness day (hosted on Transgender Day of Remembrance as they have no shame):

Two days later, a new lawsuit dropped in Waukeska county, Wisconsin. Headed by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) and Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty (WILL), the suit (CN: link contains misgendering) sought an injunction against Kettle Moraine school district on behalf of two parents after their kid changed his name and pronouns at school. Genspect later announced that they had met with lawyers from WILL about the case and provided “extensive affidavits from expert and Genspect advisor Dr. Steven Levine.” Yes, you read that right: Genspect is directly collaborating on ADF cases to cut off trans kids at school from supports.

Finally they published this which investigated an event of Genspect's:

Following intra-community criticism surrounding Genspect’s inclusion of “gender critical” trans people on their team, as well as the feature of Debbie Hayton (a “gender critical” trans woman) on Gender: A Wider Lens Podcast and Stella O’Malley’s associations with Arty Morty, a Twitter Space was arranged by Lorelei (hatpinwoman) and O’Malley for December 11, 2021. Other notable attendees include Kate Harris of LGB Alliance, Julia Mason of SEGM, Sinéad Watson of Genspect and Gender Dysphoria Alliance, Carol Freitas of DetransVoices.org and LGB Alliance USA, Tania Marshall of GETA and (previously) PAGDWG, and a number of LGB Alliance members, doctors, teachers, and representatives of non-profit organizations. Around the same time both Genspect and Arty Morty of LGB Alliance Canada were facing criticisms for promotions of James Cantor, who has advocated for the inclusion of pedophilia into LGBTQ+ communities as a sexual orientation.

Within the leaked audio, we find two major factors in terms of how O’Malley operates. Firstly, O’Malley makes explicit confessions to enacting conversion therapy/practices on trans youth in her care, with a particular emphasis on trans girls in this context, and connecting it to the transmisogynistic concept of “autogynephilia” (occasionally referred to as AGP) that is supposedly “porn-induced”. Second, she lays out her public outreach strategy using these practices and her other platforms, such as connecting with government bodies and promotion of the pioneer series in Gender: A Wider Lens Podcast.

Quoting O'Malley herself:

I suppose, uh, where I’m coming from this more than anything is, uh, to, um, make sure that children are, if- if at all possible, are stopped from medical transition. I think that’s the most important thing for me.

when I’m talking to somebody who’s maybe 15 years old and is autogynephilic and has no idea what’s going on except ”get out of my way, I need to be a woman.”’ And that child is not able to articulate what the hell is going on. They don’t have the verbal ability to, they don’t have the conceptual maturity, and I have to try and figure out how do we help this fast increasing number? This is not like the Ray Blanchard numbers, this is a very fast, very quickly increasing number of boys. Now, are they ROGD, are they AGP, or frankly are they what I think: a mix between AGP and ROGD, and I think the AGP is porn induced

I’ve no idea whether AGP is innate or not. Why? Because I don’t have autogynephilia, I never had it. So I’m kind of going- if some people are saying it is, and some people are saying it isn’t, my feeling is it’s developmental. I don’t really care whether it’s innate or not because I don’t think that absolves anybody. I don’t think that’s the point. The compulsion is a much more- more um important psychological point because if you look at pedophilia, it’s a compulsion. It gets- it gets them. And how do we get in the way of somebody who has a compulsion that actually seriously negatively wrecks other people’s lives? How do we stop that?

Stella O'Malley was interviewed about her chapter in the book Inventing Transgender Children and Young People co-authored by Heather Brunskell-Evans of eliminationist group Women's Declaration International;

Beyond targeting legislation banning conversion therapy, O’Malley and her organization Genspect have also been quite active in efforts to reshape social or medical supports for trans youth. In the US, Genspect has contributed to court cases led by Alliance Defending Freedom targeting school boards. Stephen Levine, a Genspect advisor and one of the erroneous “experts” used in the Bell v Tavistock case and Hennessy-Waller v. Snyder in the US, submitted affidavits in the Kettle Moraine School District case.

In summary, since the following information is not in other sources, if we were to use Health Liberation Now as a source we could verifiably state that:

Genspect was involved in attempting to sue a Wisconsin school for allowing children to socially transition without letting parents stop them (which gives more context for their ties to Alliance Defending Freedom already present in the article).

Genspect has ties to the far right anti-LGBT groups FET, the IFTCC (who's reason to exist is literally to advocate conversion therapy for LGBT people in general) and the World Congress of Families

Genspect has ties to Liberty Counsel

Genspect as worked alongside Family First New Zealand to oppose conversion therapy bans in NZ

Genspect has supported James Cantor

Genspect has ties to the Bell v Tavistock case

Stella O'Malley, speaking for Genspect, has been quoted:

describing teenage transgender girls as suffering from "porn-induced" "autogynephilia" with a side of ROGD, comparing their desire to transition to pedophilia

stating her primary goal is to stop people medically transitioning

I'm listing this all here since I fully expect some editors to take issue and would prefer to deal with this here rather than edit warring. If anyone has objections to either specific details or inclusion of verified facts because they don't like the source, speak now or forever hold your peace. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:51, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

That one may find the site to be interesting or that the site itself cites sources does not a reliable source make. Many blogs do the same thing, and this site is equivalent to a blog. The site is by two co-developers, one of whom wrote the above mentioned article. The WP:SPS policy states, Anyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert. That is why self-published material such as...personal websites...personal or group blogs...are largely not acceptable as sources....if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources.[9] Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. And in the footnote: Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of the content. Obviously, there are no peer-reviewers, fact checkers, or editorial staff checking that article. As such, it should not be used, and must not be used as a source for any information about a WP:BLP. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:42, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

You forgot to include a particularly relevant section of WP:SPS Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources. Two detransitioners who've been involved in the ideological conversion therapy camp, have been published repeatedly by reliable sources both in their own right and as the organization they formed are indeed subject matter experts. To cover just a few descriptions in reliable sources:

Xtra Magazine calls them an organization that both puts forward a positive vision of liberation for trans, de/retrans and gender-diverse people through equitable access to healthcare, while also developing resistance strategies against transphobic attacks, which have recently become worse.,

From the Los Angeles Blade: a trans rights advocacy group that investigates the effects of policy on trans health

From The Texas Observer (Specifically an article we already cite in the page): All of this could have been avoided had Bazelon listened to more experts and included more transgender people. That includes Ky Schevers and Lee Leveille, who run a trans advocacy group called Health Liberation Now!

From Vice: a trans-run resource that analyzes the forces targeting gender-affirming healthcare,

From Time Magazine The first known protest of gender-affirming pediatricians was in December 2020, per research by Health Liberation Now (HLN), a trans-run advocacy website that researches political impacts on trans health

Also, in regards to Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer., I don't believe Genspect is a person, unless I'm very much mistaken.

From WP:USESPS: Self-published works are sometimes acceptable as sources, so self-publication is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to automatically dismiss a source as "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable". While many self-published sources happen to be unreliable, the mere fact that it is self-published does not prove this. A self-published source can be independent, authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, and expert-approved. Furthermore A self-published source by an expert may become an authoritative reference for a claim, as with the best-selling self-published book The Joy of Cooking as a source for claims about cooking techniques. and A self-published source by an expert may include a significant opinion that hasn’t yet appeared in a non-self-published source.

Not to mention, under Acceptable use of self-published works we have The author is an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications, except for exceptional claims. Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so.

If we look at WP:BIAS, it points out that The Wikipedia project strives for a neutral point of view in its coverage of subjects, both in terms of the articles that are created and the content, perspective and sources within these articles. However, this goal is inhibited by systemic bias created by the shared social and cultural characteristics of most editors, and it results in an imbalanced coverage of subjects and perspectives on the encyclopedia.

More specifically from WP:SBEXT: Representation within sources is not uniform due to societal realities, and the external lack of coverage results in an internal lack of coverage.

It's no secret that most news organizations have less transgender staff than statistics would suggest they should, you can read a little more about that here. Do you believe that a news publication focusing on transgender health will have as large an audience or easy a time getting incorporated and off the ground and financially self-sustaining as a general news organization? See the Trans Journalists Association's statements on the state of transgender representation in the newsroom.

Since you didn't comment on the veracity of the statements, I take it you have no issue and recognize them as true but simply object to an independent conversion therapy watchdog being quoted in an article about a conversion therapy org since they didn't wait around to incorporate and went straight to the actual reporting bit.

To summarize:

are there any reliable sources which disagree with the fact that Health Liberation Now are subject matter experts or, in terms of peer-review and fact-checking, call into question any of their reporting? Just one. The onus is on you to prove they're not considering the above descriptions.

Can their reporting being self-published not be accounted for by 1) the discrimination against transgender editors in most newsrooms and 2) the fact that conversion therapy and laws pushing it are real issues that are under-reported and require a fast response?

TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 14:34, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Actually, the WP:ONUS is on you to find a consensus that this is a proper source. USESPS and BIAS are essays, not policies. And my not bothering to spend many hours examining HLN's claims is in no way an endorsement of them. On Wikipedia we evaluate sources, not claims. Regardless of whether they are a usable SPS, BLPSPS is very clear that even "expert" SPS must not be used for text about living persons, and the text you proposed earlier talks about quite a few living persons.

And no, it has not been established that this source is by recognized experts in the sense of acceptable SPS. The sources you quote above refer to them as an "advocacy group" - advocacy groups exist to promote a point of view, not as representative and WP:DUE expertise, especially on a medical topic. And as SPS says, if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources.

There are lots of LGBT-focused and staffed published outlets that qualify as RS, including some already cited on this page. There are also progressive outlets like the Texas Observer that regardless of who staffs them, would clearly count as informed cisgender allies at the least. So no, there is no need for this source simply because some unrelated newsrooms might underrepresent transgender people. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:34, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Crossroads, your view that advocacy groups cannot be reliable expert sources is not shared by the WP community. What matters is whether the source unrecognised for its expertise; your feeling that it is equivalent to a blog and therefore should not be used isn't backed by WP policy, strongly as you may feel your opinion on this to be valid. Newimpartial (talk) 18:57, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

There is no independent review of what the owners of the site choose to post whatsoever. It is an SPS, undisputably, and therefore cannot be used for BLP-sensitive content. And I doubt that 'being recognized and quoted as an advocate' is what the Wikipedia community would consider to satisfy the definition of an expert WP:SPS; this requires that work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:47, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

What BLP-sensitive content? The small fish looks red from here... Newimpartial (talk) 23:29, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

This is laughable, I can only assume you have not read what OP proposed to add to this article based on this source. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:38, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

The only thing I saw in the OP that might be BLP material were the statements attributed to Stella O'Malley, and those might or might not be subject to WP:BLP depending on where and how the information is presented (Genspect is not a living person in the sense of WP:BLP. I see no BLP content in the rest, which I will quite here (and collapse) for clarity:

non-BLP material

In summary, since the following information is not in other sources, if we were to use Health Liberation Now as a source we could verifiably state that: Genspect was involved in attempting to sue a Wisconsin school for allowing children to socially transition without letting parents stop them (which gives more context for their ties to Alliance Defending Freedom already present in the article). Genspect has ties to the far right anti-LGBT groups FET, the IFTCC (who's reason to exist is literally to advocate conversion therapy for LGBT people in general) and the World Congress of Families Genspect has ties to Liberty Counsel Genspect as worked alongside Family First New Zealand to oppose conversion therapy bans in NZ Genspect has supported James Cantor Genspect has ties to the Bell v Tavistock case

What colour is the small fish now? Newimpartial (talk) 02:04, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Health Liberation Now listed at Reliable Sources Noticeboard

Letting everyone know to take the discussion there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTranarchist (talk • contribs) 16:18, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

"False claims"

This source says that:

These ‘guides’ also make false claims that there is “no evidence showing that social or medical transition reduces the risk of suicide among young people with gender dysphoria”.

We mention this in the lead, but not in the body. As per WP:LEAD the lead can only be a summary of what's in the body, so I am moving the mention into the Reception section. It doesn't appear to be due to include it in the lead. AndyGordon (talk) 10:01, 17 September 2022 (UTC)