This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Sexology and sexuality B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Journalism B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. LGBT studies B‑class This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Gender studies B‑class Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : see Unassessed Gender studies articles and Unknown-importance Gender studies articles Cleanup : edit to see Collaborate : see /Collaboration Copyedit : edit to see Deletion sorting : see /Sexuality and gender Expand : edit to see Infobox : see Gender studies articles needing infoboxes Merge : edit to see Notability : edit to see NPOV : edit to see Orphans : Brannon Masculinity Scale · Domestic violence in lesbian relationships · Holy Virility · Media and gender · Michael Kaufman (author) · Women's education in Saudi Arabia Photo : see Wikipedia requested photographs of gender studies Split : History of feminism Stubs : see Gender studies stubs Translate : see /translation Update : edit to see Verify : Riot grrrl Needs attention : see Gender studies articles needing attention Books B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

@Banglange: I was wondering why you keep reverting changes to Jack Turban's credentials? He is presently a chief fellow, at the time of the review he produced for Psychology Today he was a fellow. I'm not sure what your objection is here. Perhaps you could elaborate? Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:57, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to say beyond what I put in each diff comment. He keeps getting called a psychiatrist when he is still a trainee in psychiatry. That he is chief trainee, that he is one versus another rank of trainee, etc. don't change that.Banglange (talk) 20:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are mistaken. In a US context, a fellow is not a trainee. It is a follow on qualification after residency, but it is not mandatory. At this point he is as far as I'm aware allowed to call himself a psychiatrist. See Psychiatrist#US and Canada, according to his Linkedin profile, Jack did his residency in paediatrics and psychiatry between May 2017 and July 2020 in Boston. At the time of writing the review, December 2020, he had earned the right to call himself a psychiatrist and had enrolled as a fellow at Stanford as a follow-on qualification. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:15, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Turban's review of Shrier is dated June, 2020. He says in his own bio, however, that he did not become a fellow until after that: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jack-turban-12218130. When he wrote/posted/published his review of Shrier, he was still a resident, neither a fellow nor a (full) psychiatrist.Banglange (talk) 23:56, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where that date has come from, as the source on its website very clearly says "Posted December 6 2020". I've checked The Wayback Machine, which is excluded from the site, and archive.today for which the earliest snapshot is dated December 7th. I'm not sure where a publication date of June 12 2020 came from, as that would be before the publication of the book on 30 June 2020, and mentions events like Target removing it from sale which didn't happen until November 2020. Even the URL for it is dated December 2020. I've corrected the source in the article now however to match what it says. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:25, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked for when the source was first added to the article. It seems it was added in this diff, dated 8 December 2020. And I can see exactly where this confusion has come from. At some point after adding the article, someone changed the date format. At the time of the initial add, the article date was 2020-06-12. In YYYY-MM-DD format that is 12 July 2020, but in YYYY-DD-MM format it is 12 December 2020. In this diff on 13 December an editor corrected the date into a less ambiguous format, but appears to have read it in the wrong format and assumed the review was written on 12 June 2020. I've corrected it now in the article, but this is definitely a lesson in always checking what the sources say first! Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:47, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as that particular diff edited the dates on multiple sources, some of which may still be in use on the article I'll be doing a quick source check now to make sure all the publication dates match up. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:49, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Sideswipe9th: I really do have to say what a good piece of sleuthing that was! The remaining issue, however, is that Turban does not appear to have written the review at all: The blog says the review was by "Devon Frye" and merely posted by Turban on his PT blog: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/political-minds/202012/new-book-irreversible-damage-is-full-misinformation. None of this seems to quality as an RS at all. Banglange (talk) 02:25, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! There were a couple of other references that had been previously added in an ambiguous format, or had the wrong date entirely which I've now corrected on the article.

With respect to Devon Frye, I believe you're mistaking the reviewer of the review for the author of the review. If you check the source, Jack Turban is the author of the book review, and Devon is the reviewer of Jack's book review. If you click on Devon's name you get redirected to an information page on Psychology Today's editorial process, which includes an "editorial review for all expert author content." All content written by expert authors on that website are subject to review, even if the content is itself a book review! Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Now I get it. Thanks, again. Banglange (talk) 02:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After all the contentiousness I got in the middle of in other threads, I have to compliment everybody in this one for centering things on facts, and getting to the bottom of various misunderstandings about terminology, date formats, and authorship of reviews and reviews of reviews. It's a nice break from the culture wars. *Dan T.* (talk) 16:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers @Dtobias:. It was a strange one which took a lot of diffs to find when it first got added and when it got mistakenly corrected. It'd certainly be nice if the world as a whole could stop using ambiguous dates! But it was a worthwhile exercise in making sure all the current citations are dated correctly. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:18, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More than enough said. Unfortunately, I know better that to enter this debate through the established trench network, so I did something different, because—who knows?—it can hardly be worse. — MaxEnt 23:49, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This post was far too long, containing many apparent irrelevancies about other articles which have nothing to do with this topic, and overly-detailed analysis and WP:FORUMing about one of the sources. The sentence in our article that prompted this comment has been the result of much discussion here, and well represents and balances the various sources on the topic (and not just the one you criticize here). Crossroads ^-talk- 04:58, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Crossroads. There's so much unnecessary content in this that it's hard to understand what point MaxEnt is trying to make. If it's just a concern over the terminology "endorses", then that has been discussed before. If there's another point that I've missed, could it be restated in a much briefer way? Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source [50] is a YouTube video. And I am not sure YouTube videos are ideal sources for Wikipedia.

What do you guys think?CycoMa (talk) 23:59, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think Source 50 is valid for the phrasing it supports, per WP:RSPYT and WP:ABOUTSELF. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 00:41, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I weakly support removal of the whole sentence. I have no doubts about the reliability of sources 49 and 50, but both are primary. The Spectator source is just an excerpt from the book. I find it relevant that someone who was interviewed in the book apologized later, but absent any coverage of that in secondary sources, I am unsure if it's due for inclusion. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 00:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is WP:UNDUE. If it's just an op-ed and a YouTube video, there is no reason to think this is noteworthy. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Yes. But think about it. If you let this door open, then the door stays open for other uses of YT videos. Think about all the endless arguments about using a YT video as a source this would floor the brakes on. Look at it this way: what becomes good for the goose will become good for the gander.) Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I actually did a Wikipedia essay on the "goose and gander" issue many years ago, complete with some neat Goose Sauce and Gander Sauce packets. (Incidentally, the thing that distinguishes a goose from a gander is, of course, biological sex, but it's a "transphobic dogwhistle" to say so!) *Dan T.* (talk) 13:49, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm weakly in favour of keeping the sentence, if we could find a secondary source to support it. I think one of the people interviewed for the book and mentioned in it by name, regretting their involvement is noteworthy, if we can find a non-primary source to back it up. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:07, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pyxis Solitary, isn't this just the slippery slope fallacy? There are very clear guidelines for when a YT video is appropriate as a self-published source, which is why I linked to WP:RSPYT and WP:ABOUTSELF. Because of that, I don't think the issue you raise would become a problem. That said, unless a secondary source is found to establish that inclusion is due, I also support removal of the sentence in question. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 01:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the Chase Ross segment. For posterity, here's the diff of my removal. I only spent about ten minutes searching, but I was unable to find RS referencing Ross and the book. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:26, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Schrier claims that a member (unnamed) of the National Association of Science Writers was expelled for just suggesting that her (Schreir's) book "sounded interesting." Schrier, Abigail, June/July 2021 "Gender Ideology Run Amok," Imprimis June/July 2021, 5096/70:1-7, p. 6. Kdammers (talk) 06:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe they were (allegedly) expelled from an online forum run by that organization rather than the organization itself. Is there another (more reliable) source for this story? *Dan T.* (talk) 00:35, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've placed this thread in a new section since it seems separate from the "Source 50" discussion above. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 00:50, 16 November 2021 (UTC) [reply]

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

Can you please be more specific about how you think the article should be changed? There has been considerable previous discussion about various aspects of the article, and it might be that certain changes have already been discussed. Either way, with a controversial article such as this one, it is usually preferable to make or propose small individual changes that can be assessed one at a time. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 04:43, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) This article has been gradually built up and refined by many, many editors. We judge how to describe a topic by the WP:Reliable sources on it, not by preconceptions that it must be like some other topic. When it comes to how to describe ROGD, WPATH carries far more WP:WEIGHT than does a writer for Buzzfeed News. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:45, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at your edit, I agree with your description of ROGD as "fringe". In fact I think I made the argument for the exact same wording last year. ROGD is not recognized by any peak body on transgender health or mental illness. It is plain WP:FALSEBALANCE to present it as even having the slightest credence of legitimacy. I don't as much agree with your other edits of the lead, not because I like it (I don't really), but I'm not sure of a better way of summarizing Shrier's position. However, I do think the "Reception" section suffers from placing undue weight on non-scientific sources with no appreciable credentials in the subject matter. I agree those sources should be included to some degree, but they should not be prioritized over the reviews from (for example) Jack Turban and Christopher Ferguson. Bravetheif (talk) 08:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that we should be calling ROGD "fringe" explicitly, both on this page and its own. If every major psychological association signing a statement that basically reads "this isn't real and you shouldn't use it" doesn't make something fringe, I don't know what would. Loki (talk) 08:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A reliable source saying it is fringe. Aircorn (talk) 10:01, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

user:crossroads Can you clarify what you mean; ROGD is not a part of WPATH diagnostic criteria. It's a fringe theory popularized by anti-trans groups. Shrier's book is part of a broader and ongoing "culture war" campaign to undermine lgbtq+ rights and there are several places in this article where the language seems carefully chosen to either soften criticism for her or her ideas or to imply that her ideas carry more weight than they do. Let's be clear - Regnery Publishing publishes political propaganda and Shrier's "freelance journalism" career consists of writing outrage culture pieces for right wing media. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 13:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see if there's consensus to change "contentious concept" in the second sentence to either "fringe" or "debunked" and the word "stated" in the third sentence to "claimed" which emphasizes the fact that these are false claims that Shrier is making. I'd also be open to other ideas for rewording/rewriting the lead to avoid giving the impression that there's any legitimate scientific debate around the ideas Shrier is presenting. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 14:21, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a hypothesis that hasn't been proven, true, but it hasn't been "debunked" either, and there's "culture warring" going on on both sides. *Dan T.* (talk) 14:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

user:dtobias There's no ROGD "hypothesis". The "theory" originates from homophobic parents being surprised by their queer kids coming out. The littman paper literally searched out these parents, asked them if they thought ROGD was real then published a paper insisting that proved the matter. No major psychiatric or medical group recognizes ROGD and there is no legitimate research into the supposed "phenomenon". It's a theory that was cynically created to legitimize "gender critical" hate speech. We might as well be talking about whether phrenology proves the superiority of white men. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 14:46, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Based on peer-reviewed scholarship like this, I for one would call ROGD "debunked". Newimpartial (talk) 14:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Newimpartial: if you think that paper debunks it, you're really going to love this one from last month which states We did not find support within a clinical population for a new etiologic phenomenon of “ROGD” during adolescence. Among adolescents under age 16 seen in specialized gender clinics, associations between more recent gender knowledge and factors hypothesized to be involved in ROGD were either not statistically significant, or were in the opposite direction to what would be hypothesized. I'd be happiest saying it is debunked, but I'd also accept fringe. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the change of "contentious concept" to either of those options, and also with changing "stated" to "claimed". Both-sidesing this debate (I don't think the American Psychiatric Association is particularly interested in starting a culture war) doesn't change the fact that no peak bodies endorse the theory, or that the most comprehensive text reviewing the theory positively is the very book we are currently discussing. Bravetheif (talk) 05:46, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What about the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and WPATH, among many other professional organizations, saying There are no sound empirical studies of ROGD and it has not been subjected to rigorous peer-review processes that are standard for clinical science. Further, there is no evidence that ROGD aligns with the lived experiences of transgender children and adolescents.? [1] Loki (talk) 20:52, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not the same as saying it is fringe Aircorn (talk) 15:07, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is. Per WP:FRINGE: In Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. The APAs and WPATH represent the mainstream views in their particular field, they're saying it's departing from those views, boom, fringe. Doesn't mean "crazy" so we don't need them to say "crazy". Loki (talk)

That is defining the topic as it pertains to the guideline ("in Wikipedia parlance"). It is not saying that the word "fringe" in article text is exempt from the WP:V and WP:NOR policies. And that it departs "significantly" is questionable per the SOC 8 quote. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:41, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's an important point; there's a clear distinction between internal Wikipedia jargon and language as understood by the general public, which is what article space should be aiming for. To the general public, "fringe" has pejorative connotations that are usually not appropriate for articles. *Dan T.* (talk) 13:58, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well its at the right noticeboard now so lets see what they come up with. 19:11, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Quotes from WPATH and others

• No amount of agreement or WP:LOCALCONSENSUS among a few editors here permits overriding fundamental policies like WP:No original research and WP:NPOV. Any attempts to do so will not survive wider scrutiny. The article already states about ROGD, which is not recognized as a medical diagnosis by any major professional institution. Regarding "claim", see WP:CLAIM. A sociology paper (i.e. no medical expertise or peer-review) and a single WP:PRIMARY study do not justify editors reaching the original conclusion that it is "debunked" or "fringe".
  Regarding the claim that the methodology of the original study was uniquely bad, see [2]. As another example, a 2020 paper states, With regards to the referrals, in line with international trends [9–12], Italian’s population of trans* youths seem to be growing, particularly with respect to AFABs. Some respondents depicted referrals with traits of the so-called “rapid onset” [15] of gender incongruence, especially when describing AFABs, with pressing requests to start soon hormone therapies and an (apparent) lack of history of gender incongruence. However, this is a very complex phenomenon that needs further exploration.
  Now let's look at WPATH's views. Their 2018 position statement is that it constitutes nothing more than an acronym created to describe a proposed clinical phenomenon that may or may not warrant further peer-reviewed scientific investigation. (Emphasis added.) Since then, just this month, WPATH has released their draft version of the Standards of Care 8, to be released in the spring. To gain insight on their current thinking, we can look at their chapter on adolescents, which states, it is critical to consider the societal changes that have occurred over time in relation to transgender people. Given the increase in visibility of transgender and gender diverse identities, it is important to understand how increased awareness may impact gender development in different ways (Kornienko et al., 2016)....Another phenomenon is adolescents seeking care who have not apparently experienced and/or expressed gender diversity during their childhood years. One researcher attempted to study and describe a specific form of later-presenting gender diversity experience (Littman, 2018 [the ROGD paper]); however, the study contained significant methodological challenges which must be considered as context for the findings: 1) the study surveyed parents and not youth perspectives, and 2) recruitment included parents from community settings in which treatments for gender dysphoria are often characterized as pathological or undesired. The phenomenon of social influence on gender is salient, however, as some who have changed their thoughts about their own gender identity have described how social influence was relevant in their experience of their gender during adolescence (Vandenbussche, 2021). For a select subgroup of young people, in the context of exploration, social influence on gender may be a relevant issue and an important differential. This phenomenon is neither new nor surprising for health professionals working with adolescents; however, caution must be taken to avoid assuming these phenomena prematurely in an individual adolescent, as well as from datasets that may have been ascertained with potential sampling bias (WPATH, 2018). (Emphasis added.)
  Now, to be absolutely clear, my point is not that ROGD existing is the mainstream view. Rather, it is that it is not correct that the idea is already considered "debunked" or "fringe" by the relevant scientific community or that there is "no legitimate scientific debate". Neither are any of the unsupported conspiracy-theory-like accusations accurate. Therefore, I see no need to change how the idea is described in this article. Wikipedia does not advance the WP:POV of editors no matter how convinced they are of it. The idea is accurately described as contentious and unrecognized as a diagnosis by official medical bodies. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:41, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not promote a WP:POV, but it also doesn't mince words. The WPATH text you've cited pretty clearly rejects Littman's ROGD hypothesis, consistent with previous statements. What they do accept is that gender identity may have a social component, something no one in this thread is rejecting or even debating. "Irreversible Damage" isn't about general social aspects of gender identity, it is specifically about Littman's theory of ROGD, and this thread has yet to produce a single source that shows it is a mainstream scientific position. If it is not mainstream, then it is accurately described as "fringe", and any watering down of the phrase is simply WP:FALSEBALANCE. Likewise whether or not Littman's study was "uniquely bad" is of little actual relevance to this discussion. Her paper has (in my opinion, rightfully) come under heavy criticism for its methodology and data, and her pointing the finger at others to show they're just as bad doesn't improve the quality of the original paper. Finally, while the second source you've cited references ROGD, it doesn't seem to me to make an analysis one way or another. Any attempt to extract a meaningful position would be WP:SYNTH, and I could just as easily argue that the reason there is a significant increase in rates of diverse gender presentation is more a matter of destimagization and education. Bravetheif (talk) 10:02, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crossroads, in your "unique" reading of WPATH you have watered down the social contagion theory of ROGD so that it becomes "maybe social factors matter". Well, duh. That isn't ROGD any more, and so I don't see how you can cite either the old or the new WPATH as holding open the door for ROGD. There simply isn't any legitimate scientific debate to be had - I have enough faith in your research skills that, if there were, you would have found it by now. Newimpartial (talk) 12:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like perhaps we should make a post on the Fringe Theory Noticeboard, as the header for it clearly states Post here to seek advice on whether a particular topic is fringe or mainstream, whether there may be problematic promotion of fringe theories, or whether undue weight is being given to fringe theories. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:09, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Littman's paper says, towards its end where hypotheses are developed, "Hypothesis 1: Social influences can contribute to the development of gender dysphoria". That sounds similar to the "Well, duh" statement that "maybe social factors matter". Later, it says "Finally, further exploration is needed", thus indicating that the paper wasn't intended to be the final proof of its hypotheses, but merely an opening toward examining them further in the hopes of finding more solid conclusions. Opponents of Littman seem to be attributing much more extremeness to the paper than it actually has. *Dan T.* (talk) 02:00, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are presenting the Littman paper as though it did not contain all of the "social contagion" and "peer contagion" nonsense, or its (dubious and pseudo-scientific) Hypothesis 3. It does. Recognizing that social factors matter doesn't imply support for the social contagion framework, which is both the paper's most visible "contribution" and also the point that Shrier leans into in particular. Newimpartial (talk) 02:16, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a debate about the merits or failings of Littman's paper, just whether it is mainstream or fringe. I have yet to see a single peak body accepting *specifically* Littman's theory. The very fact that the original paper is (according to you) somewhat inconclusive, and the very book we're currently discussing is the most comprehensive review of the thesis indicates to me that it is fringe. As a side note, you seem to have missed the third hypothesis of Littman's paper, the part people consider extreme, that theorize that Gender Dysphoria is transmissible. Bravetheif (talk) 02:48, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To describe it as "fringe", specifically, you need WP:MEDRS sources that call it that specifically. Otherwise, you have to stick with the current MEDRS sources, which are that it is contentious and unrecognized as a medical diagnosis. It really is that simple, per WP:NOR. Newimpartial's watered down reading of WPATH as just "social factors" is not accurate; they cited Littman and then shortly therefter state, The phenomenon of social influence on gender is salient, however, as some who have changed their thoughts about their own gender identity have described how social influence was relevant in their experience of their gender during adolescence (Vandenbussche, 2021). For a select subgroup of young people, in the context of exploration, social influence on gender may be a relevant issue and an important differential. The prominent WPATH SOC 8 describing gender dysphoria resulting from "social influence" being "an important differential" in "a select subgroup" right after citing Littman cannot be twisted into 'the idea is fringe'. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:03, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WPATH acknowledging that social aspects may have an influence over gender *identity*, while in proximity to a discussion of the Littman paper, is not a tacit endorsement on it's theory on the transmissiblity of gender *dysphoria*. The two terms are not synonymous and, even if you (wrongly) decided to interpret it as such, accepting that there may be a social influence on dysphoria is not the same as endorsing the specific theory. In fact, in the previous sentences they reject the Littman paper on grounds of flaws in its methodology. Considering that, and reading over WP:MEDRS, I see nothing specifying the requirement for a direct quote when calling a theory "fringe". In fact, WP:MEDSCI pretty clearly states that editors should summarize the positions of "major professional medical or scientific societies". ROGD is not recognised as a formal diagnosis by either WPATH or the APA, and that the only subsequent clinical study has failed to support the theory, points strongly to being, currently, a fringe position. Bravetheif (talk) 06:54, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WPATH is talking about medical care, not just identity. Gender dysphoria is the diagnosis under which such care is given. They did not say they "reject" the paper; they named those issues as context, but still cited it. If it were "fringe", they would not be describing it as they do. But above all, Wikipedia goes by what is WP:Verifiable, so no amount of synthesizing that it is fringe from sources that don't specifically say that is usable. Crossroads ^-talk- 07:25, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate an explanation (obviously outside our own positions and biases on this issue) of what semantic difference there is between describing ROGD as "fringe", and as "contentious" that makes one WP:SYNTH and the other not. Neither "contentious" nor "fringe" are direct quotes, and appear more to be an attempt at summarizing scientific consensus of the topic (inline with WP:MEDSCI). Frankly, if you're that hung up on it, "disproven" or "discredited" is a far more accurate descriptor, as the previously mentioned clinical trial "did not find support within a clinical population for a new etiologic phenomenon of “ROGD” during adolescence". That aside, I don't think the mere citation of Littman's paper by WPATH means the theory has any credence. They make no positive statements as to the hypothesis or the paper as a whole, and the fact they don't outright reject the idea that there may be a social component to gender identity doesn't mean they accept or legitimize Littman's specific theory. As I previously mentioned, the following sentences also discusses gender identity, not dysphoria. As far as I'm concerned, the fact that no relevant bodies recognize the diagnosis is all that is necessary to describe it as fringe. Bravetheif (talk) 08:58, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Crossroads Can you try to find a way to make your point that's a little less wordy? It feels a little like you're just trying to bury dissenting opinions Voiceofreason01 (talk) 15:58, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you addressed that to the right person? Korny O'Near (talk) 17:44, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure if User:Voiceofreason01 was trying to refer to me or Crossroads, but I'll assume me and I apologize if my comment is a little wordy or unclear, my intention is not to bury dissent. If people want a more summarized discussion of my position, it's thusly: No peak bodies recognize ROGD as a clinical diagnosis. Inline with WP:MEDSCI, and in order to not present a WP:FALSEBALANCE, our description of the theory should reflect that. A hypothesis not accepted by mainstream organisations is, by definition, fringe. If other editors consider that summation to be WP:SYNTH (but "contentious" not to be for some reason), then the theory could be described as "debunked", "unsupported", "discredited", or "unsupported in a clinical context" with direct citation to this study. Bravetheif (talk) 02:07, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

our description of the theory should reflect that - and it does. Quoting the article text: not recognized as a medical diagnosis by any major professional institution. A single WP:PRIMARY study is not sufficient to describe something as debunked or discredited, especially in view of the other sources I quoted. "Unsupported" is not far off from the status quo, but considering the way SOC 8 cites Littman and another study, that seems rather cherry-picked. 'Not recognized by professional institutions' is fully verifiable and completely accurate, and I see no way in which these other terms improve understanding of the topic.

Regarding "contentious", this is a synonym of various words which are probably used in the sources given for that. It was not my intention to challenge that claim, which I don't think is as unlikely. However, I don't think that word adds much meaning and may even distract compared to the phrase after it about 'not recognized', so I don't care if it were dropped.

Voiceofreason01, per WP:ONUS and WP:BRD, no one should be WP:Edit warring in preferred text. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:56, 10 December 2021 (UTC) expanded Crossroads ^-talk- 07:04, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think your sources sufficiently establishes that ROGD is a mainstream view, in fact, to quote you: my point is not that ROGD existing is the mainstream view. That makes it the definitionally fringe: not part of the mainstream.... If you still find the phrasing unacceptable, this secondary source can be cited as evidence for the wording "disproven" and, at the very least, I feel "unsupported" can be supported and, while more contentious, is more concrete than "contentious". As an aside, with all due respect, I don't agree with your reading of SOC 8. They speak of Littman's paper in purely negative terms and, in my opinion, are attempting to make clear that, while they are against her specific paper and thus, her theory (which is the status quo until they accept a study in it's favour, and Wikipedia does not base it's articles on anticipated evidence), they are not outright rejecting the concept that gender may have a social component. Recognition of the broad concept in which a theory could be categorised is not an endorsement of the specific hypothesis. Bravetheif (talk) 11:10, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the article on Atheism doesn't contain the word "fringe", despite all sorts of big powerful mainstream institutions opposing it. *Dan T.* (talk) 14:03, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dtobias ROGD is a theory that only exists as a political argument. There is no scientific evidence supporting it and Irreversible Damage is cynically designed to victimize transgender people. It's hate speech. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 14:30, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's your opinion. It has no place in article space. *Dan T.* (talk) 14:38, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is my opinion based on Shrier's use of slurs both in her book and in subsequent press and because her rhetoric is just repeating TERF talking points. I'm not suggesting that the wikipedia article actually says that but there's no reason to ignore that Irreversible Damage and the media campaign surrounding it are designed and intended to be hurtful and to victimize a vulnerable minority. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 14:51, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Dan T.* This is not article space, it is a talk page. WP:NOR does not apply. Bravetheif (talk) 23:18, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Dan T.* I would appreciate it if you stayed on topic or make a concrete argument with your examples, rather than making vague, irrelevant statements. Bravetheif (talk) 23:18, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

user Crossroads Please review wp:civil and refrain from making threats in your edit summaries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voiceofreason01 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"refrain from making threats in your edit summaries" – Where are the diffs supporting your accusation?

• WP:ASPERSIONS > "It is unacceptable for an editor to continually accuse another of egregious misbehavior"
  "making objectively unsupported or exaggerated claims of misconduct can necessitate sanctions or restrictions even if the editor subjectively believes that they are true"
  "It is unacceptable for an editor to routinely accuse others of misbehavior without reasonable cause in an attempt to besmirch their reputations. Concerns, if they cannot be resolved directly with the other users involved, should be brought up in the appropriate forums with evidence, if at all."
  "An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence,"
  "If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, at appropriate forums such as the user talk page, WP:COIN, or other appropriate places per WP:COI."
• WP:NOPA > "There is no rule that is objective and not open to interpretation on what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion, but some types of comments are never acceptable: "
  "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links."

Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 08:38, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what Bravetheif is saying about how WPATH SoC 8 characterises Littman's paper. It is entirely negative, pointing out the methodological flaws in Littman's original survey, and their resulting survey bias. The paragraph where it is mentioned ends with a cautionary note on research that involves datasets with sampling biases.

The other study WPATH cite is this one from April 2021 by Vandenbussche, which was a study into the needs of detransitioners. While that paper does contain a mention about being pressured to transition by social surroundings it only does so briefly, in a comment about how 14% of the respondents listed a number of other reasons. The exact number of how many felt they were socially pressured within that subgroup is unknown. This paper by Vandenbussche also has some sampling issues, based on where it recruited participants, see the paragraph beginning "Retconning of findings to match and leverage selective support from new publications". Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:44, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "healthliberationnow.com" is an academic journal; rather, it's a blog. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:34, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Note: I have sought input from editors at the fringe theories noticeboard. Here's a link to the noticeboard section. Firefangledfeathers 14:01, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Many thanks for this @Firefangledfeathers:. I've been busy the last couple of days, and hadn't had time to post it myself. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:21, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Bopping in from over there, I don't think that fringe is a misleading term as far as summaries go, though it might be better to be more specific. XOR'easter (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  XOR'easter Appreciate the input! Do you have any suggestions as to how it could be made more concrete? This secondary source directly makes the claim that this clinical trial "dispels" the theory of ROGD (calling it a "myth"). That could support the phrasing of "disproven" or "discredited" (I prefer the latter, as I think it more accurately reflects the state of the theory). Bravetheif (talk) 02:54, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  That "secondary source" is a press release from that paper's authors' university. It is in no way an independent source or what WP:MEDRS or even WP:RS means by a secondary source. Again, it is inappropriate to take a primary study and use that as the final word on something when secondary sources from WPATH, as I cited under #Quotes from WPATH and others, do not describe it that way. If they thought the whole idea was fringe or discredited, they would not have described it the way they did.

  And just because something isn't the mainstream view doesn't mean we can call it "fringe" in article text. In fact, the fringe theories guideline distinguishes between alternative theoretical formulations and pseudoscience (which are equated with fringe theories). We wouldn't describe interpretations of quantum mechanics differing from the Copenhagen interpretation as "fringe", for example. All the same, there is still scientific uncertainty on how gender identity develops in children and adolescents.

  I find it odd that Voiceofreason01 speaks of concern about how we describe a "living person", then proceeds to make unsupported and polemic accusations about said person. WP:BLP does apply to talk pages. Also, we are here concerned about describing ROGD as hypothesized in academic literature; Shrier's views may go beyond that. We neither soften nor sharpen criticism beyond what the sources say per WP:NOTADVOCACY. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:34, 11 December 2021 (UTC) tweaked Crossroads ^-talk- 07:43, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  More than one person in this thread has disagreed with your interpretation of the WPATH text, arguing as though your reading were a given will do little to convince anyone of your point. I appreciate there is a difference between a fringe theory and an alternative one, but I do not believe ROGD to be the latter. Following Wikipedia's own guidelines for distinguishing the two, Alternative theoretical formulations generally tweak things on the frontiers of science, or deal with strong, puzzling evidence—which is difficult to explain away—in an effort to create a model that better explains reality, I do not think ROGD meets that criteria. It is an attempt at explaining a phenomenon perhaps not sufficiently explained by our current model of gender and gender identity, yes, but it also departs radically from that model. Considering that it is not recognized by any reputable institutions, and that the only subsequent clinical trial on the subject found there to be no evidence in favor of the theory, I think it is firmly pushed into "fringe".

  No worries about the Western University article, I've found a better source anyway. Dr Jack Turban can be directly quoted as describing Littman's theory as a a fringe view not supported by evidence here.^{[1]: Document 55-2} Given that we now have a direct citation to a medical source for the claim (making it not WP:SYNTH), I sincerely hope you have no issues with it's inclusion on those grounds. Bravetheif (talk) 07:07, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, 'I think X and Y mean its fringe' is WP:Synthesis. Jack Turban's opinion in a court filing is not a "medical source" of the sort sufficient to have WP:WEIGHT equal to WPATH. It is not an WP:RS at all; we know it represents his viewpoint and nothing more, and it received no peer-review or fact checking. He is not necessarily representative of the field as a whole, any more than Littman or Vandenbussche, and in some other matters his claims are debated. Editors who want to describe this as fringe should ask themselves why no published, peer-reviewed medical sources call it that (oh, and I checked Florence Ashley's sociology article, and it doesn't either). Crossroads ^-talk- 07:43, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Crossroads This is a talk page and, as you should be aware, WP:SYNTH does not apply when making arguments as to my position. Again, the quoted WPATH passage, and your contentious interpretation of it, is not enough evidence to support ROGD as a mainstream scientific theory. A mainstream theory is accepted, or at least positively acknowledged by leading organisations in the field. A mainstream theory has at least some balance of evidence in its favor. ROGD has neither. It is fringe. Your arbitrary requirement that "fringe" must be a direct quote (or a quote of a synonymous word) from a published, peer-reviewed source runs directly contrary to WP:MEDSCI, and is not a bar I've seen passed by the status quo. In my opinion, several of the sources already cited in this thread contain statements that could be accurately summarized as describing ROGD as "fringe" or outside the mainstream. If you insist on a secondary source, then this medically reviewed article on PsychCentral makes the direct analysis that ROGD is "unsupported by evidence", is "bad science", and that "there is no evidence that ROGD exists". I can honestly think of no better way to summarize those statements other than describing ROGD as "fringe" or even "pseudoscience". Bravetheif (talk) 10:58, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  If someone is arguing on a talk page to insert article text that is SYNTH, that text cannot be used (because it's SYNTH) and their reasoning for that text has to be called out as SYNTH. 'But I can make any argument on talk pages' doesn't evade that fact. Your "whatever isn't mainstream is fringe" false binary/dichotomy has already been addressed. PsychCentral.com is not a peer-reviewed journal, and this is yet another article by Florence Ashley, who is a "jurist and bioethicist", not a psychologist, psychiatrist, or the like. WP:MEDSCI in no way permits the sources you have been presenting, while it does emphasize statements and practice guidelines from professional societies, which I have been quoting. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:22, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not this debunked claim again. Which peer-reviewed medical sources are they? WPATH and the medical literature I quoted at the beginning of this subsection do not support this strong pejorative; see WP:NPOV. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:33, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall it was Turban who said so. Just so we are clear, WP:SYNTH applies to original research by Wikipedia editors. If someone off-wiki has made a statement whether or not it meets MEDRS, whether or not it meets RS at all, it cannot possibly be SYNTH. As you have on occasion with other policies and guidelines (like LABEL), you are invoking SYNTH in a situation where it clearly does not apply. Newimpartial (talk) 00:38, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In which peer-reviewed medical source did Turban say so? Didn't happen. And any instance of SYNTH is relative to the sources being incorrectly claimed to support an idea. In this case, the claim that a few are pushing to include is found only in non-MEDRS or is being synthesized from sources that don't say it. Your claim that If someone off-wiki has made a statement...whether or not it meets RS at all, it cannot possibly be SYNTH means nothing is SYNTH, because there is always going to be someone somewhere claiming whatever. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crossroads, WP:SYNTH (or WP:OR) applies to claims that are original with WP editors; a claim that is sourced - no matter how badly, and no matter how much you disagree with it - can never be SYNTH. At least one source using the term "fringe" for ROGD has already been provided, so your claim that this statement is SYNTH cannot possibly be valid in terms of WP policy. Your subsequent rationalization, that there is always going to be someone somewhere claiming whatever is a complete red herring, because this instance is not a handwave to "someone said sometime", it is a source that has been provided right on this Talk page.

WP is not some Nietzschean realm where words mean whatever you want them to mean; as much as you object to a claim that is found only in non-MEDRS, if it is found in an external source it cannot possibly be SYNTH. It is very difficult to have a CIVIL discussion with editors who willfully misquote (or misunderstand) policies for the convenience of their rhetoric on Talk pages. Newimpartial (talk) 01:34, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure am in agreement with that last sentence right now. WP:SYNTH: If one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis. Doesn't matter if blogpost Y says it, or source Z says it but that editor wasn't using it; that editor was committing SYNTH. That non-RS use a term does not mean it's okay for an editor to claim to point to RS as support for a term when they are synthesizing the RS. Obviously. Non-RS + SYNTH does not acceptable material make. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:52, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Turban is not a "blogpost", he's a medical professional with domain knowledge in the topic we are currently discussing. It is not novel analysis to describe ROGD as "fringe" when we have a direct quote from a reliable source. Bravetheif (talk) 02:23, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crossroads, that is a perfect example of you selectively quoting policy and then twisting extemporizing it to make an assertion that policy doesn't support. No WP policy says that "claims not based in RS are synth", which is what your position amounts to. What SYNTH says is, claims that deduce a conclusion from postulates found in separate RS is SYNTH. Claims based on direct statements made in non-RS can be invalid for any number of policy-relevant reasons, but SYNTH simply isn't of them, and it simply is not possible to have a CIVIL discussion with you while you make ridiculous statements like Your claim ... means nothing is SYNTH, because there is always going to be someone somewhere claiming whatever. No, it means that when a claim is made in a source, we don't call it "synth": instead we assess the quality of the source in context, which means (inter alia) comparing statements within that source with statements in other sources. If only one source uses "fringe", and other sources offer criticism or dismissal of various kinds in different terms, then there is no way "fringe" can be SYNTH. The policy-relevant question becomes, is "fringe" the best way to communicate what the recent, reliable sources do say, or are other terms more appropriate. WP:SYNTH is not one of the policies that helps us answer that question, and your using it in this discussion like some kind of balloon-art shibboleth is both comical and deeply frustrating.

However, you have given me a perfect potted example of how you twist policy in service of your POV in a particular debate, for the next time your editing is up for behavioural discussion, so you have my sincere thanks on that score. Newimpartial (talk) 02:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument here does not even come close to addressing what I am saying, conflates completely separate matters, and is just flat out in denial of what the policy says. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:35, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No; WP:SYNTH simply does not apply to sourcing standards in the way you have asserted here. That policy is about what editors do with sourced material and is not concerned with how we assess off-wiki sources for reliability and WEIGHT, which is the argument you have been trying to base on SYNTH (without the slightest support from the text of WP:SYNTH/WP:OR). En-wiki does have policies about source reliability, but you have not been citing those, perhaps because they do not support your argument either. Newimpartial (talk) 04:43, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have been pointing to MEDRS and RS. Stop misrepresenting me. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:47, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Shrier has posted her speech at Princeton University where she talks about why she wrote the book. Perhaps there are quotes there which are appropriate for this article. (She's not very complimentary of Wikipedia: "If you form views based on those Wikipedia articles or reports by corrupt fact-checkers, if you act based on them, are you exercising freedom of will?") The posting of this speech has produced a cascade of further reactions; the blog Why Evolution Is True praised it, and this in turn prompted Richard Dawkins to tweet in praise of the book. *Dan T.* (talk) 14:15, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

She also repeats lies and slurs about transgender people. It's not a bad speech as far of these things go but it's the same thing she says in every speech/interview she gives. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 14:25, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is, of course, WP:ABOUTSELF material (and sometimes WP:MANDY applies). But my sense is that at times, Shrier is more transparent about the intentions and opinions reflected in her book when she is promoting it in other venues; this speech may actually be helpful in that regard. Newimpartial (talk) 18:10, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Richard Dawkins tweet is most definitely not a WP:RS, and I doubt "Why Evolution is True", a blog, is either. I do appreciate the levity though, it is pretty funny for her to imply that, after reading this Wikipedia page, the only way to exercise your freedom of will is to buy her book. Bravetheif (talk) 23:30, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Would probably be misleading, since none of the "scientific" reviews were in scientific journals. Also worth noting here on Talk is that Science-Based Medicine made at least one poor choice in who supposedly represented the mainstream to review the book, namely A.J. Eckert. As noted in this Washington Post article by prominent WPATH psychologists, Many openly discuss how they use the adult informed-consent model of care with their teen patients, which almost always means no mental health involvement and sometimes no parent input, either. “If you are trans, I believe you,” says A.J. Eckert, the medical director of Anchor Health Initiative in Connecticut. Eckert is wary of psychologists who follow the guidelines by completing a comprehensive assessment before recommending medical intervention for youths. “Gender-affirming medicine,” Eckert holds, means that “you are best equipped to make decisions about your own body,” full stop. These providers do not always realize they’ve confessed to ignoring the standards of care. (Contacted by The Post for comment on this essay, Eckert said that “no medical or surgical interventions are provided to anyone who has not started puberty” but added that, as Anchor Health sees it, “Therapy is not a requirement in this approach because being trans is not a pathology.”) (Emphasis added.) Crossroads ^-talk- 07:56, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not dead set on the suggested titles, and agree that should not be the implication. The more wordy titles of "Responses within the scientific community" and "Media reviews" might more accurately convey these categorizations. Bravetheif (talk) 11:44, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are no reliable scientific sources supporting ROGD. Even Littman who's pushing the theory doesn't use the term ROGD in the same way that Shrier and other "gender critical" activists do. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0202330 Voiceofreason01 (talk) 14:19, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should the article describe rapid onset gender dysphoria as "fringe"? Crossroads ^-talk- 07:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

• No. The status quo of contentious concept...which is not recognized as a medical diagnosis by any major professional institution more accurately represents the reliable medical sources (WP:MEDRS) as demonstrated below. The word "fringe" is not found in peer-reviewed medical papers or statements by professional bodies. It is WP:Synthesis on the part of Wikipedia editors, and states a degree of pejorativeness and rejection that is not representative of the MEDRS.

This paper cited as justification presents an original argument (rather than purporting to be an unbiased review) and thus seems to be a WP:PRIMARY source regarding the author's views. It is a sociology paper by an author without expertise in psychology or psychiatry. WP:MEDSCI states, Be careful of material published in journals...which report material mainly in other fields. Even then, it does not use the word "fringe".

Here are numerous high-quality medical sources that pointedly do not treat or describe ROGD as fringe, but rather as an alternative theoretical formulation worth considering seriously, while at the same time acknowledging that it is not the most recognized view (as the status quo text puts it). Emphasis added below.

As shown, it would be cherry-picking and POV to take those few who condemn ROGD as not just unproven, but as disproven, and treat their word as gospel. Crossroads ^-talk- 07:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• No, but it should be described as unproven hypothesis. I think describing it as fringe would be too dismissive of the medical literature on the issue. However, it cannot be described as anything more than one possible, hypothesized phenomenon with insufficient research supporting it (per the sources above). Yes. We should not give it more credit than it is due, and that is not much. This theory has the capacity of being used to deny or discredit young trans people's experiences, and so we have to be extra-careful when describing it or writing about it to make it clear that a) it is not supported by current research consensus, outside of b) studies with important methodological flaws (e.g. as described by WPATH) which affect the strength of the hypothesis and which c) are focused on certain regions of the world and so may not be representative of a global situation and be specific to the socio-cultural movements within one or few countries as access to and information about trans healthcare is significantly increased. It will probably receive more research in the next few years, upon which this theory can be revisited in wiki, but for now it fits the description of WP:FRINGE. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 08:59, 12 December 2021 (UTC) Changed vote from no to yes on 18:18, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong skepticism Clear rejection of the book's claims should be foregrounded in the article. The wiki article Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy appears to have a useful overview, in which ROGD is widely discredited. I don't edit in MEDRS so I'm not sure what it means to officially declare something "fringe". (But surely it does not require finding sources that literally use the word "fringe"?) But it is not a complete or effective book article if it does not fully address this context and the book's highly negative reception. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 09:03, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• More from the book coverage perspective: the wide condemnation of this book appears to actually be its primary notability claim. This should be foregrounded. It is not necessary for this article to address the entire ROGD controversy or review the literature on ROGD itself (as noted, an article already exists on that topic): this article needs to contextualize this book. And that means alerting readers to its wide rejection. I am not aware of any coverage of this book which describes it as presenting widely-accepted views, even in the case of positive coverage from those who consider its minority views to be correct. Those who praise the book for its transgessive boldness reinforce the book's status as existing outside the mainstrem. A source table collecting direct coverage of the book itself will, I believe, make clear that WP:BALANCE requires describing the book as entirely lacking in wide acceptance. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. If ROGD cannot be described as a "fringe theory", I am unsure of what can. To make an argument explicitly outside the consideration of citations for article space, ROGD deviates radically from the current scientific understanding of gender and gender identity, its originating paper was widely criticised on its methodological flaws,^[1] the only clinical trial testing it found no evidence to support the theory,^[2] and no major bodies recognise the diagnosis.^[3][4] The paper cited as justification for "fringe", is a peer reviewed work published in a reputable journal, who's has specific domain knowledge in the area of transgender health and has been recognised as such. Despite being a review and commentary published in a different field, it clearly passes the threshold for a WP:MEDRS.

In addition to the already cited position statements, this position statement, signed by the American Psychological Association and other high profile organistations, supports eliminating the use of Rapid-Onset Gender Dysphoria. It states explicitly that there are no sound empirical studies of ROGD and it has not been subjected to rigorous peer-review processes that are standard for clinical science. Further, there is no evidence that ROGD aligns with the lived experiences of transgender children and adolescents.

The explicit rejections by AusPATH and the American Psychological Association, along with the recent, entirely negative, references by WPATH are more than sufficient to establish ROGD as fringe, regardless of other editor's citations of individual acknowledgments. Bravetheif (talk) 09:13, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That these MEDRS are "inconclusive" is entirely the point. WPATH, AusPATH, and the APA all treat it as unproven, not disproven, and acknowledge the need for more research. And when quoting the CAAPS statement signed by the APA and others, you left off that this applies to clinical and diagnostic application given the lack of rigorous empirical support for its existence. The status quo already says that it is not recognized as a diagnosis, but to imply greater disprovenness is not accurate. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:39, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understood your meaning, my point was that, in light of more conclusive evidence rejecting the hypothesis, these mere acknowledgements of the theory do not hold much weight. Setting the requirement for a theory to be thoroughly disproven before it can be described as "fringe" is an arbitrary bar that does not reflect the actual meaning of the word. All that is required for it to be called "fringe" is that it be outside the mainstream. WPATH, AusPATH, and the APA all reject the hypothesis, with the APA calling for it's elimination entirely, and AusPATH explicitly rejecting the foundations of the study. That is not how mainstream alternate hypotheses are treated. Bravetheif (talk) 22:27, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The APA called for its elimination from diagnostic use, which is not the same as calling for its elimination from scientific research. The WPATH, AusPATH, and the APA-signed official statements on ROGD all encourage further research; while they do stop short of specifically calling for research on ROGD, those phrases are in statements about ROGD and it is clear that they are not saying it should be rejected from scientific research (which they could have easily said were they certain that would be a dead end). Crossroads ^-talk- 06:27, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crossroads, I apologize for being short with you, but what does "elimination from scientific research" mean in your mind? It is blatantly ridiculous to suggest that the threshold for "fringe" be that no one is capable of or permitted to perform research on the topic. That would mean flat-eartherism, anti-vax research, and every other textbook fringe theory is actually, mainstream. The cited WPATH position statement is outdated, as they signed the more recent CAAPS one, so it can be disregarded entirely except perhaps as evidence of a historical position. Both remaining statements call for research generally into gender-affirming care, not into ROGD. CAAPS states evidence-based clinical guidelines for gender-affirming care that support child and adolescent gender identity development, and AusPATH encourages continued scientific exploration within a culture of academic freedom, not censorship. All TGDNB people are deserving of gender-affirmative, evidence-based care that is underpinned by contemporary, adequately endorsed and community engaged standards of care and clinical guidelines. It is frankly misleading to claim this is support of further research into ROGD. Bravetheif (talk) 06:44, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That other stuff has numerous peer-reviewed sources in the relevant fields calling it fringe, and no treatment as plausible in mainstream journals. Comparing this with that is night and day. And ROGD is not necessarily incompatible with the broad concept of "gender-affirming care", regardless of what later non-experts may have claimed. I was very clear on what they did and did not say about further research. Also, note what AusPATH says about "censorship" - have non-ROGD papers ever been threatened with censorship? In this area claims of censorship of research only exist as accusations that activists have tried to censor research regarding ROGD itself. Crossroads ^-talk- 07:04, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ROGD is entirely incompatible with the statement all TGDNB people are deserving of gender-affirmative, evidence-based care (AusPATH), because it creates a diagnosis in which gender non-conforming individuals should not be treated with gender-affirming care. It is not possible to reconcile those two positions. You incorrecly attributed a call for further research into gender-affirming care into one for ROGD, when those are not synonymous. ROGD has been dismissed in muliple, reputable journals (despite your insistence that they are "not experts"), and it has position statements outright calling for its elimination and rejecting its core foundations. The CAAPS statement does not even treat it as a theory, just as straight up false.

have non-ROGD papers ever been threatened with censorship? Yes, of course they have. Are you serious? The Nazi's literally burned the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft to the ground. Donald Trump gagged the EPA.^[10] This is not the appropriate platform for espousal of your persecution complex and personal conspiracy theories. It is not relevant to this discussion, and I frankly couldn't care in the slightest. Bravetheif (talk) 07:26, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AusPATH is obviously not talking about Nazis or the EPA; these have nothing to do with present-day research into GD. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:32, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. The professional views referred to are plain enough, as long as we quote explicit independent judgements that plainly reject the validity of the book. Leaving the non-professional reader to assess quackery in published works of this nature amounts to betrayal of WP's function. Fringe authors hold all the cards in selling their ideas to fuel public hysteria, and as long as WP can directly quote, or clearly and honestly paraphrase, professional rejection in terms that Joe Public can understand, quibbling about an expressive term is counter-productive. If not "fringe", I would call it "quackery", but that might be seen as even more tendentious. JonRichfield (talk) 11:18, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The sources criticizing ROGD, particularly the ones using more strident language, are written by people and organizations with an axe to grind. For WPATH this "affirmation only or else" position is described on its Wikipedia page, other PATH organizations likely similar politically. Ashley and Restar are graduate students, self identified trans activists and one of them is trans herself. While their opinions are not invalidated by that fact, they are more accurately viewed as a sample of opinion from "trans affiliated" academia and medical organizations, which is a different population than the relevant areas of academia or medicine as a whole. A narrow, involved and COI (for grants etc) subgroup cannot represent expert opinion in its entirety even if it purports to speak for the entire field. Sesquivalent (talk) 12:20, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • But if the releveant medical and academic establishment is "trans affiliated" in the sense you have suggested, then these expert perspectives are the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field, in the language of WP:FRINGE, or the academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies referred to in WP:MEDSRS. Your attempt to cast doubt on the relevant experts as A narrow, involved and COI (for grants etc) subgroup is an inversion of WP sourcing policy and a re-enactment of the arguments we used to hear from climate-change skeptics, trying to discredit mainstream climate science on the basis of dissidents who were, err, not climate scientists. This rhetorical move is not a policy-relevant consideration on WP. Newimpartial (talk) 13:55, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Absolutely not. If the basic claim of ROGD is that large numbers of gender dysphoria diagnoses in adolescent girls are factitious, then various areas in, e.g., child psychology are implicated and the opinion of experts in those areas are relevant. Even considering only the field of (for lack of a better term) "trans medicine", the opinion of trans and non trans persons, and of advocates vs non advocates, are likely to be rather different statistically. People whose funding, careers or self conception are to some degree dependent on accepting and promoting the paradigms and approaches criticized by ROGD, are a small minority, and using their statements as authoritative indicators of the mainstream is classic cherry picking. Sesquivalent (talk) 14:35, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why not dismiss the opinions of everyone who has promoted ROGD because their funding, careers or self conception are to some degree dependent upon it? XOR'easter (talk) 15:40, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • If anyone here had quoted ROGD proponents as authorities on whether the theory they are personally tied to is fringe then yes, obviously that would fail the laugh test too and for the same reason that I gave. A very clever hypothetical observation! In the real discussiom we are having, people are seriously quoting trans activists as objective and uninterested authorities on the official universal and definitely scientific academic consensus. Just trust them; they even almost have PhDs. Sesquivalent (talk) 16:30, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • In the real discussion we are having, one set of sources is being arbitrarily designated as not having an axe to grind. XOR'easter (talk) 16:39, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Is there a source being used here to argue against fringeness, that has an axe problem like that of WPATH, or the two graduate student trans activists, or the doctor paid by litigants and sellers of hormone treatments? Sesquivalent (talk) 17:07, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • What reliable sources are being used here to argue against fringeness? I haven't seen any - Crossroads' reading of his sources is highly tendentious, and I haven't seen anything better put forward. Newimpartial (talk) 17:27, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sesquivalent, who is a small minority of what group, according to you? It seems to be that anyone claiming that large numbers of gender dysphoria diagnoses in adolescent girls are factitious - rather lurid even as a statement of the premise of ROGD - would be the small minority of qualified professionals and academics, according to the sources available.
      • Also, dismissing scholars who publish peer-reviewed work in this field, and national and international expert bodies, as trans activists is not how WP sourcing is assessed; whether or not a particular scholar is transgender is not a policy-relevant criterion no matter how much you disagree with their findings.Newimpartial (talk) 16:35, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • "trans activist" is (as stated above) literally their public self description, and is relevant as such. Both the ROGB proponents and opposing activists are a small minority from the larger population of relevant experts in child psychiatry and other areas of psychology and medicine, both have axes to grind and incentives that are incompatible with objectivity, and neither is a reliable source of information on what is fringe and what is consensus. Sesquivalent (talk) 17:07, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • I haven't been using (or referring to) Ashley and Restar as sources. Are these the only ones you are referring to? Right now what you are setting is a pure FALSEBALANCE position, since we have many high-quality sources that are critical or skeptical about ROGD, and literally no good sources supporting the hypothesis. But your lurid paraphrase of it above suggests that you just WP:LIKEIT. Newimpartial (talk) 17:27, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• No. It should be described as not being an established diagnosis. Per WP:FRINGE, I would not label ROGD as "fringe". The 2018 study was not debunked; PLOS ONE republished it to clarify that it was not a clinical diagnosis, and that the results were based on data from reports by parents of teen and young adults who identified as transgender -- but it did not change the results. (The study led to the creation of the Pique Resilience Project.) There have been howls, pushback, and armchair opinions since the publication of the Littman research, but I am not aware of another ROGD research published by a major university that completely invalidates the Littman study (the 2021 study conducted by professor Greta Bauer and her Trans Youth CAN! project team at Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry should be taken with a grain of salt because ... duh ... what different conclusion was frankly expected). Until ROGD is absolutely discredited by highly-regarded scientific research, labeling it "fringe" is OR. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 13:36, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you suggesting that the ongoing Bauer et al. study is not research published by a major university? If not, why not? Also, labelling ROGD as "fringe" cannot be WP:OR because Jack Turban - regardless of how you personally might feel about his work - has already done the original research for us, and applied the "fringe" label. Newimpartial (talk) 13:44, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are two Turban documents, a Psychology Today review panning the book, and an expert witness report submitted as part of ongoing litigation. Only the latter calls ROGD a "fringe view". Are you proposing to take expert witness reports as a source for anything except the position of the litigant who paid for the report? This case is still in process, no judgement has been made on the arguments in the expert reports, and the opposite side has its own expert saying that this is a emerging area of "unsettled science" for which no consensus exists. Sesquivalent (talk) 15:22, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was responding to Pyxis' claim that "fringe" is WP:OR, which it manifestly isn't. Whether it is WP:DUE depends on the overall weight of the high-quality sources available, but she seems reluctant to take those into consideration. Newimpartial (talk) 16:35, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Having deep methodological issues (most significantly biased sampling, as described by WPATH) means that the onus is still on it to be proven, rather than being "debunked". If I may paraphrase Hitchen's razor, the burden of proof lies on those making the claim that ROGD is an actual phenomenon. As far as I know (per sources in this discussion), no proper research without major methodological issues has actually done so. Thus, the claim is unfounded, and its opponents need not argue further in order to dismiss it.

  On another note, mentioning the Pique project is completely irrelevant to a discussion on medical issues, Pyxis Solitary, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't do so in the future. Four de-transitioned women sharing their story has no influence on whether a theory making general claims on the whole transgender teenage population within a medical context is correct. Otherwise, I'll go right ahead and quote students at my local bar on alcohol having no negative effects on the body.Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:07, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Let me save you any further wasted wordage ... I don't listen to, nor give an ounce of consideration, to the opinions of anyone who believes that they can disparage Wikipedia editors with impunity, as you did with your across-the-board accusation posted in a User talk page: "I'm halfway through reading the 2019 thread on TERFs and WP:LABEL and feel the need to thank you for your endless patience dealing with (in non-wiki voice and my personal opinion) transphobic editors." Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:14, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• No. "Fringe" is an unnecessarily pejorative term that associates it with the likes of "ancient astronauts" and QAnon. The article should truthfully state that the theory is not currently accepted as a diagnosis by the mainstream, but it is the subject of heavy debate (with lots of ideology and culture-warring involved). *Dan T.* (talk) 14:47, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I currently agree with you that perhaps fringe is a mischaracterization (see above), but the idea we shouldn't label things as "fringe" because of the connotations of the term feels wrong to me. We call things fringe when they depart significantly from mainstream scholarship. Not when they are similar to QAnon. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:09, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• No. It's contentious and not presently established as a diagnosis, and should be described as such.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:22, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes since that's a decent one-word summary of the state of the available sources, and I can't for the life of me see how it's inconsistent with the status-quo text, which is not recognized as a medical diagnosis by any major professional institution. "Marginal" would also work as a fair summary of the situation. "Fringe" covers a broad territory and thus isn't pejorative. A "fringe" concept might be a coherent idea that have been empirically discredited but maintain a minority of diehard supporters; e.g., I don't think anyone would blink if we called the Aquatic ape hypothesis "fringe". By the same token, I wouldn't want it to be the entirety of the description, but it's not going to be, so no problem there. "Contentious" is actually worse; like "controversial", it gives no indication of what the problem is or where the weight of the evidence lies. XOR'easter (talk) 15:40, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes As per XOR'easter & Bravetheif. The original study was "methodologically flawed and unethical", saying it proceeded from "an overt ideological bias" based on parents of trans youth from "websites openly hostile to transgender youth". It is not recognized by any major professional association as a valid mental health diagnosis. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 17:46, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes per XOR'easter and Bravetheif. The only clinical study into the theory found [no] support within a clinical population for a new etiologic phenomenon of rapid onset gender dysphoria during adolescence and [a]mong adolescents under age 16 years seen in specialized gender clinics, associations between more recent gender knowledge and factors hypothesized to be involved in rapid onset gender dysphoria were either not statistically significant, or were in the opposite direction to what would be hypothesized. In light of the other strong statements by WPATH, AusPATH, and others mentioned previously it is absolutely fringe. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:14, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes per WP:FRINGE. It is a reasonable summary of the best sources available on the topic as described above, which is what the lead should attempt to provide. Calling it contentious implies that it has a meaningful level of support in the medical community or that it is somehow an open question still under debate, which is absolutely not true and is unsupported by the article's sources. The (very few) sources people are trying to present arguing that it is not fringe - letters to the editor, fringe sources writing in an area where they have minimal or no expertise, etc. - are largely comparable to the sources people try to present to dispute the scientific consensus on climate change. Similarly, the arguments above (that the best parts of the medical establishment covering the topic have "an axe to grind" because they support mainstream science on trans issues) is essentially identical to the argument people try to use to dismiss sources in that topic area, establishing a standard under which no source could ever be acceptable; and the argument that we should not "take a side" by reporting the mainstream consensus is likewise identical. WP:FRINGE requires us to do exactly that - to describe a theory as fringe if that is an accurate summary of the best sourcing and its overall academic reception. --Aquillion (talk) 18:26, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The comparison to climate change is a faulty analogy. There are numerous sources in that field specifically calling climate change denial fringe and documenting via detailed surveys that it has extremely high rates of outright rejection as disproven. Not the case with this. None of the relevant sources I presented above are from outside the field of expertise, though one of the opposing sources is. Mainstream sources are not still giving any credence to the possibility that climate change is not human caused, while the sources I listed above in fact do so about ROGD; the two ideas are not comparable. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:55, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re: do so: do what? Give credence to the possibility that the ROGD hypotheses are valid? No. Give credence to the possibility that ROGD describes an empirical phenomenon? Not really. If you think detailed surveys are required to demonstrate that multiple RS explicitly reject ROGD as an empirical phenomenon and a framework for theory or professional practive, and that no RS offer actual support for it, then I believe you are mistaken. Newimpartial (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For most of the medical sources I quoted above, I find it impossible to read them as doing anything other than giv[ing] credence to the possibility that ROGD describes an empirical phenomenon. Possibility being emphasized - I'm obviously not claiming it is accepted as fact, but it isn't rejected widely enough either. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:01, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are eliding a key distinction, here. Several sources allow the possibility that the presentation of GD in young people is changing, and encourage research into that. But the MEDRS you have cited don't even support your claim that this change follows the descriptive pattern that ROGD assumes, much less offer any endorsement at all of the ROGD hypotheses. Please see my longer dissection of your evidence here (copy-edited version here). Newimpartial (talk) 14:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• No, but we should be spelling out that ROGD is not a diagnosis, not a medically recognised phenomenon and not presented accurately by Shrier. It is simply an idea that has been tentatively suggested by methodologically limited initial research and not been found replicable. I agree most with SMcCandlish's summary: It's contentious and not presently established as a diagnosis, and should be described as such. It seems to me that the article already does this, and attention should be focused on better coverage in the body, rather than the addition of the word "fringe" as an un-nuanced summary. — Bilorv (talk) 21:29, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• No, and agree with SmcCandlish's formulation. Sesquivalent (talk) 21:47, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• No - it's hardly surprising that a theory that's only three years old, and based on a phenomenon that itself is only about about ten years old, has not yet gained any official recognition. (And that's even ignoring the extreme political sensitivity of the topic.) It says nothing about mainstream views of the theory. Korny O'Near (talk) 05:31, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Korny O'Near ROGD is not just unrecognised, peak bodies, including the APA and WPATH, have called for the elimination of it and similar concepts as a term,^[11] stating their is no empirical support and that it doesn't "align with the lived experiences of transgender children and adolescents". AusPATH, another peak body in the field, explicitly rejects the core implications and assumptions of the theory.^[12] The only clinical trial into the theory so far found no evidence to support the hypothesis.^[13] Bravetheif (talk) 02:15, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a rather unscientific view from these supposed "peak bodies" - of course ROGD doesn't "align with the lived experiences" of transgender people; the whole point of ROGD is that the people said to experience it are not actually transgender at all. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:09, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which might be relevant if those people actually existed, but the basis of the ROGD "hypotheses" is in online gatherings of parents who are having difficulty with their children's gender announcements. Not much there, there. That these parents don't believe their children to be trans is essentially the basis for their selection in the first place; the Littman study just takes the parents' assertions at their word. Talk about affirming therapy, and no wonder this "scholarship" can't be reproduced by anyone else. Newimpartial (talk) 17:23, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• No. Mostly agreeing with Crossroads's and Sesquivalent's comments. It is a well-defined, clearly observable, new phenomenon. Opposition seems to be made more on moral/ideological than on medical/scientific grounds. Should be described as controversial, not generally accepted. VdSV9•♫ 11:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re: a well-defined, clearly observable, new phenomenon - says who? No reliable sources for this statement have been provided - it is pure WP:POV, as presented here. Newimpartial (talk) 13:13, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • From its definition, which is not at all ambiguous, therefore, well-defined. Clearly observable in the sense that, given the definition, one can look at the data and observe, again, without much ambiguity, if the "onset" has been "rapid" or not. This is a discussion page, not an article. As for the POV: pot, meet kettle. VdSV9•♫ 22:28, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • You aren't seriously arguing that, though no WP:RS have offered clear definitions or empirical evidence for ROGD in alignment with clear definitions, that nevertheless ROGD seems plausible to you because WP:OR? I don't see how that argument should have any WEIGHT according to WP policy. Newimpartial (talk) 22:34, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm surprised you speak so confidently about "the data" when all professional and medical associations have deemed the studies made on the subject as methodologically flawed. Additionally, it isn't for us to decide what is a "well-defined, clearly observable, new phenomenon". It is for us to reflect what the RS say. And right now I haven't seen a single RS brought up by you or anyone else in this thread that is either in agreement with or optimistic about ROGD. However well-defined or clear or observable it is, the question posed here is whether it is a fringe theory or not. In essence, is it accepted by the professional and medical mainstream or not. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:38, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would very much dispute the claim that no RS have been shown here that are at least "optimistic" about ROGD. Also, there is a whole spectrum between "the mainstream" and "fringe", as noted by guideline recognition of alternative theoretical formulations. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:32, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

          Please link the sources you feel are optimistic about ROGD, Crossroads. In regards to alt theories: In other cases an alternative theoretical formulation lacks significant evidence to show its validity, but when such evidence is produced, the theory can become mainstream. There is currently no evidence that shows its validity. Pseudoscience [...] relies on weak evidence such as anecdotal evidence or weak statistical evidence. The evidence of ROGD is terribly weak due to significant methodological issues. It would be like theorizing the existence of alien UFOs by surveying people who claim to have been abducted. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 07:00, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The main opposition is that there is no methodologically sound proof for it and it is not accepted by any association/group of medical experts in the field, not ideological grounds. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes The theory is more about politics than science particularly the way Shrier employs it in Irreversible Damage. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 15:27, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For those describing ROGD as a "new" theory it's not. The Littman study may be from 2018 but the homophobic trope of "concerned" parents accusing peer groups of "turning their kid gay" has been around for decades and the websites the Littman study drew their participants from had existed for years. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 15:32, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• No, This is an impenetrably long discussion about a very straightforward matter. Maneesh (talk) 19:15, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes: According to WP:FRINGE, In Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. It doesn't mean the theory is crazy or that it must be obviously false, it means it's not accepted by the field in question. And we have a statement from the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and WPATH, among many other professional psychiatric and psychological associations, that There are no sound empirical studies of ROGD and it has not been subjected to rigorous peer-review processes that are standard for clinical science. Further, there is no evidence that ROGD aligns with the lived experiences of transgender children and adolescents. This is definitionally what we view as a "fringe theory" here, so we should call it a fringe theory. Loki (talk) 05:56, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• no per Maneesh--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:31, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ozzie10aaaa Maneesh VdSV9 Korny O'Near etc Wikipedia is clearly lost in anti scientific Orwellian 1984 bubble ... the discussion really ought to be short when the evidence is so abundantly straightforward that the scientifically, medically and socially unproven ROGD political ideological theory is overwhelmingly " not recognized as a medical diagnosis by any major professional institution," leading associations or group of medical experts, or any international medical bodies working in the field. It is therefore outside "the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field" and therefore is undoubtedly WP:FRINGE. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 16:51, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    "Not recognized" is not the same as "fringe", especially for a theory that as far as I can tell is only three years old. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:06, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Just because it is new and not recognised, does not mean that it can not be correctly identified as Fringe, a "not recognised theory" is not somehow correct until proven fringe, badly researched medical science is not regarded as true until confirmed to be false. WP:FRINGE#Identifying fringe theories We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. For example, fringe theories in science depart significantly from mainstream science and have little or no scientific support. WP:FRINGELEVEL WP:CRYSTALBALL Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas ...should document...the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community...Wikipedia primarily focuses on the state of knowledge today. A unrecognised theory certainly can be FRINGE, especially when the research behind the theory utterly failed to meet basic "evidence-based clinical guidelines," but is based on unscientific political/moral opinions of a selected sample that was known to have "an overt ideological bias" who are not even the subjects of the theory. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 11:52, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. For example, fringe theories in science depart significantly from mainstream science and have little or no scientific support. (from WP:FRINGE) sounds basically identical to not recognized by any major professional institution. I'm not entirely sure what your definiion of fringe is, but I'd appreciate you outlining it, Korny O'Near. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 21:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    That quote from WP:FRINGE is about defining the term as used in Wikipedia guidelines. It in no way exempts the term in article space from policies like WP:NOR. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:32, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd appreciate some explanation as to how describing ROGD as fringe if RS show it is outside the mainstream would be OR, Crossroads. I am terribly confused as to how that could be. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 06:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure what represents the "mainstream" in this rather niche, and extremely politicized, field. But tell me, what is the "mainstream" explanation for the spike in teenage girls (or whatever you want to call them) identifying as transgender in the 2010s? Or is the mainstream view that there was no such spike? Korny O'Near (talk) 17:49, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The most recent paper I've seen is this from August 2021. As I said in a reply on another talk page, while there is a huge relative increase in rates of AFAB trans diagnoses, it is still a small number in absolute terms and more accurately represents an evening in rates between AFAB and AMAB, with AFAB historically being underrepresented in terms of trans people. As for who represents the mainstream, that would be WPATH, AusPATH, Endocrine Society, both APAs (American Psychological/Psychiatric Association), and other similarly well regarded institutions/organisations. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:00, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    You didn't really answer the question - unless it's a given that trans identification should be the same across men and women. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:32, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I did answer the question. It is in that paper, see the discussion section and specifically the Incidence trends subsection. If you need further understanding, I would recommend the citations within that paper as further reading. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:43, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I would support Bilorv's suggestion that the article include language discussing how Shrier talks about ROGD in Irreversible Damage and in subsequent press is very different that the way the term is used by people like Littman. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 15:53, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• No, because I'm pretty happy with the second sentence as it stands: "The book endorses the contentious concept of rapid onset gender dysphoria, which is not recognized as a medical diagnosis by any major professional institution." I could see several alternatives to contentious concept (e.g., strongly disputed idea; I'd prefer to avoid the word theory, as it sounds more scientific), but overall what we have now seems pretty good to me.
  I wonder if the word fringe resonates more strongly with Wikipedians who are familiar with WP:FRINGE than to normal readers, for whom fringe is a hairstyle, instead of a pejorative power word used when you disagree with someone's ideas. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:35, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Or what a surrey has on top. *Dan T.* (talk) 21:48, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes: if you can't describe ROGD as fringe, then we might as well just get rid of the guideline; it's a cod diagnosis that no medical body recognises and no reputable clinical study exists to confirm it. The idea that we're even entertaining the idea that it isn't fringe shows that we have a lot of work to do to remediate the rot set in because people like James Cantor (who I was pleasantly surprised to find out was banned recently) knew how to work around our policies. Sceptre (talk) 09:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Sceptre, I don't see anything in the FRINGE guideline that says that the exact word fringe needs to be used. Do you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:27, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Notified the WikiProjects listed above, as well as WP:MED, WP:FTN, WP:NPOVN, and WP:ORN. Crossroads ^-talk- 07:45, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment:

a) It seems the article is about a book, I prefer word book in the title when article is about a book.

b) Once I realized the article is about book then I did not get proper context of the RfC. Usually if article is about a book or an author then we are supposed to give book's or author's opinion as is even if that turns out to be a fringe or minority opinion.

c) We can not express our ow opinion.

d) If any third credible source is criticizing general concept as fringe but not this book or authorship then that need not be included in the article. Since such introduction is coming from Wikipedian side.

e) Where Book or authorship is not directly criticized but contrary general sources exist can be included in See also, external links bibliography etc.

e) If any third credible source is criticizing this book or authorship in particular that book author theory is fringe then that criticism be mentioned in the article.

Resolving seems simpler to me in above manner unless I am not missing on some context I am unaware of.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 08:05, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One of the reviewers of the book, Jack Turban, refers to the theory as "fringe" while reviewing this book. Perhaps this is the context you were missing? Newimpartial (talk) 09:54, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Turban has come under some criticism himself. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:04, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think that's a reliable source, brah. Newimpartial (talk) 20:20, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Turban's review used the word "fringe" once, to describe some organizations and not ROGD. Sesquivalent (talk) 15:35, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And the legal brief applies the word "fringe" to ROGD itself. Are you trying to split the hair between what is "fringe" in the review and what is "fringe" in the brief, when talking about the same construct (ROGD)? That seems like a rather fine hair to split. Newimpartial (talk) 20:20, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This RfC is about how to best introduce the theory this book advocates, Rapid-onset gender dysphoria. Specifically, how to summarize the the scientific consensus discussed in position statements such as the one released by CAAPS (signed by the APA), or AusPATH. Bravetheif (talk) 12:13, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On (a), we don't use parenthetical disambiguation unless there's another topic with the same name. On (d), this goes directly against WP:FRINGE: the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be made clear. This is because we would be promoting misinformation if we were to, say, host an article uncritical of a book promoting climate change denial. Luckily, the premise of (d) does not apply here anyway as there are reviews critical of the scientific claims made in Irreversible Damage. — Bilorv (talk) 21:42, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Crossroads I would like to remind you that simply summarizing a source is not WP:SYNTH (per WP:SYNTHNOTSUMMARY). It is not required to have a direct quote describing the theory as "fringe", provided a source can be summarized (in good faith) as making that assessment. Editors are entirely within their rights to use WP:SYNTH when making an argument, providing they are not advocating its use as a citation in an article. Bravetheif (talk) 12:13, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Such a summary cannot have a stronger condemnation than its source, nor can it be based on cherry-picked sources. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:51, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm getting very frustrated at your repeated inappropriate crying of "breach of policy" and "cherry-picked", particularly when the most egregious example of that behaviour is yours. You continue to cite WPATH's position statement that was released 24 days after the initial paper, when that is explicitly no longer their position. They (along with the APA) have signed the CAAPS position statement, which specifically calls for the elimination of the term and concept altogether. At no point in that statement do they even acknowledge ROGD as a proposed theory. It is cherry-picking to ignore this explicit and total rejection. You misattributed a quote to AusPATH that was in fact AusPATH quoting WPATH, and ignored the remainder of the statement that rejected the core foundations of ROGD. That is cherry-picking. You found a handful of papers that mention the theory or, more accurately, the phenomena and pretend that outweighs the dearth of evidence against it. Bravetheif (talk) 06:31, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Editors can and will have good faith disagreements about the sourcing and about how to apply policy, and you should WP:AGF more. AusPATH cited WPATH there, but was not quoting them. It is their own position too. Now, as I said above, CAAPS specifically called for its elimination in diagnostic settings, not from all research. More on this above in our exchange under "Survey". Crossroads ^-talk- 06:51, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • You have received multiple warnings from editors beside myself of inappropriate tagging and behaviour in [3], [4] and obviously this thread. The policy is to assume good faith, not assume good faith against all evidence contrary. I do not understand exactly what you mean by eliminating ROGD from "all research". If you do not define it, I'll just assume it's not a real thing and thus, cannot be achieved by any theory. Bravetheif (talk) 07:39, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Nothing said there about tagging, and those are from disputants in this very matter, one of whom has less than 100 edits in the last decade, and they have already been addressed above. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:41, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead of ROGD itself describes the theory as controversial. Why would we use stronger wording on an article about a book about the same theory. Aircorn (talk) 20:01, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead sentences of Rapid onset gender dysphoria currently read, Rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD) is a controversial proposed socially mediated subtype of gender dysphoria.It is not recognized by any major professional association as a valid mental health diagnosis. That goes beyond your controversial, in noting that it is only proposed and that it is not recognized by any authority. Which is not to say that that lead should not be stronger, given the more recent sources that are more roundly critical of the ROGD hypotheses. Newimpartial (talk) 21:29, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Diagnosis or social phenomenon

A lot of this discussion revolves around weakness of the evidence for ROGB as its own psychiatric diagnosis to prove the concept is fringe. Maybe that argument applies to Littman's publications, her bio article or the page on ROGB. However Schrier's book is concerned with a rapid increase in female adolescent gender dysphoria (self reports, cases, treatments) as a social phenomenon, regardless of whether its causes should be viewed as mental illness within those females. She uses terms like "social contagion" and "cultural fad". The paradigm is not that girls who falsely present as dysphoric are in need of a new edition of the DSM that certifies them as cases of a psychiatric condition called ROGB, any more than belief in QAnon or satanic ritual abuse or membership in a cult are labeled as mental disorders. The idea is rather that these are socially and culturally induced beliefs and behaviors regardless of any psychological etiology. Some psychological profiles (insecure girls and autist spectrum) are more likely to manifest the syndrome according to Schrier, but they don't define it.

To say it another way, for Schrier ROGB is a diagnosis of society and not the individuals in it. To refute this looser sense of ROGB would be to show that either the huge spike in adolescent female cases did not happen, or that it has explanations unrelated to fads, peer pressure and social media. The published support for that is quite a bit weaker than for "doesn't meet criteria for a new DSM diagnosis". Sesquivalent (talk) 20:30, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you didn't take classes in the philosophy of science. It is not the case that anyone has to show that ... the huge spike in adolescent female cases did not happen (though the evidence for it is not strong) or that it has explanations unrelated to fads, peer pressure and social media. For ROGD not to be FRINGE, it has to plausibly demonstrate (1) that there is some kind of phenomenon to be explained - and what would that be? Your huge spike in ... cases from 20:30? Your previous paraphrase from 14:35, that large numbers of gender dysphoria diagnoses in adolescent girls are factitious? - and (2) that the supposed phenomenon can be explained through "social contagion". Unless both of these claims have evidentiary support, and unless qualified scholars or practitioners accept this explanation as plausible - at least some reasonable minority of them - there is no there there, and ROGD is effectively "fringe".

Also, nice doubling down in the editorial change from those adolescents to those females. You don't prefer to bother with NPOV, do you? Newimpartial (talk) 20:44, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

She says, for example, that US cases quadrupled from 2016 to 2017 (reversing the historic pattern in which male to female cases predominate) and grew by almost 2 orders of magnitude in England over a decade. So either those numbers are way off, or some explanation is needed because those ratios are huge. Littman and Schrier have one proposed explanation which is not self evidently fringe and overlaps with a number of other known facts. The critics attack the methodology such as the survey of parents, but do they have an alternative account of the giant rate increases? It's easy enough to dismiss anything in quasiempirical social science by pointing to methodological defects that are often inherent, such as causal experiments being impossible, or by artificially raising the standards of proof (say to "new DSM diagnosis justification" level). But all this at most shows ROGB is unproven, not that the underlying phenomena don't exist, or that data from parents tell us nothing, or that the whole idea is discredited and cannot be proven using similar data with better methodology. In the absence of such demonstrations it is misleading to use language that presents the idea as already discredited. Sesquivalent (talk) 21:18, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Who is She? Littman? Sheier? Neither is a usable source per WP:MEDRS. Newimpartial (talk) 21:24, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking for the UK stats, two orders of magnitude on a small number is still a small number. The most recent National LGBT survey from 2019 reports 3.5% of respondents as trans women, and 2.9% as trans men. An increase of two orders of magnitude starts to equalise the amount of trans men to trans women. As for why it's increased over time, while I don't have a source handy at this time I would liken it to increased diagnoses of neurodiversities like autism and ADHD, or the increase in left-handedness as awareness and suppression of those diminished. As for why female-to-male, again I don't have a source to hand right now but I'll try to find one, but it's very likely similar to historic under-reporting of autistic women. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:29, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per the discussion section in this paper: We have now reached the point wherein we are seeing at least as many FTM initiating sex hormone therapy as MTF and Contrary to the prevailing view, however, we have also seen a significant increase in the percentage of FTM compared with MTF, such that the incidence rates appear to be equalizing. We hypothesize that increasing social acceptance of the LGBTQ community and decrease in barriers to care are a significant factor in these temporal changes. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:33, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The very fact they "hypothesize" it contradicts the claim that that view is The Truth with anything else being fringe. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:47, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crossroads, you have already been repeatedly warned about your unconstructive contributions in this discussion. Do not attribute arguments to Sideswipe9th that they did not make. No one on this thread has claimed that a given hypothesis is "The Truth" which proves every alternate theory fringe. They're calling it fringe because it is not accepted by any mainstream organisations, with no empirical evidential support, with the American Psychological Association calling for it's elimination entirely. Bravetheif (talk) 06:10, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How about you WP:AGF and cease casting false WP:ASPERSIONS about me being "warned"? Look closer and you'll see I never attributed that argument to her. I was commenting on a general idea that has popped up elsewhere. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:15, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, I apologize. I will try to keep a cooler head going forward. Bravetheif (talk) 10:00, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, appreciated. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:41, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To add onto Newimpartial's comment, the AusPATH position statement proposes an alternate theory to explain the increased presentation of genderqueer individuals as The timing of when an individual discloses their gender to others is a separate consideration and does not necessarily reflect the development of their experienced gender. Many do not disclose their identity, rather hiding it for fear of negative reactions from others, including family rejection, discrimination, stigmatisation and social exclusion. Bravetheif (talk) 02:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Just as a point of order, this is an article on a book. This isn't an article on ROGD. Let's try to confine ourselves to sources about the book, and broader discussion about ROGD can move to the main article on the topic. GMG^talk 21:15, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For good or for ill, this RfC asks how "ROGD" should be characterized in the context of the book. One review characterizes ROGD (or its advocates - a distinction without a difference since the same author applies the same characterization to the disorder in another piece written around the same time) as "fringe". It would thus be difficult to determine what the DUE, NPOV terminology would be to use for ROGD in this article without placing these reviews in the context of a larger scholarly community and community of practice. Newimpartial (talk) 21:22, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you are referring to this subsection, that was its purpose as well. This RfC is about ROGB, but for purposes of an article on Schrier's book (rather than, say, Littman or her theory) the question of whether evidence for ROGB meets the level needed to rewrite the DSM is superfluous, or a way of artificially raising the standard of proof for not being fringe. Sesquivalent (talk) 21:29, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nobody is asking whether evidence for ROGB meets the level needed to rewrite the DSM; the relevant authorities are asking whether there is any evidence of an ROGD-type phenomenon at all, and generally concluding that there isn't. Which isn't surprising for something that was constructed through interviews with parents who were unhappy with their children's gender identity announcements, and who encouraged their children to abandon transition or detransition. I know this is strictly irrelevant, but honestly, a more appropriate proposal would have been Parental "rapid onset gender dysphoria" reaction disorder, based on Littman's actual data. Newimpartial (talk) 21:34, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Per the sources I quoted at the beginning of the RfC, quite a few researchers do indeed concur that there is some evidence of an ROGD-type phenomenon. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:47, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not really. Throughout this discussion, you keep making these assertions that are not backed up by the evidence you yourself have presented.
        • After going through all of the (cherry-picked) sources you included when launching this RfC, the strongest positive statement I found from a MEDRS was the 2020 paper that said of Littman's piece The survey received mixed support, and warrants future studies to help understand if ROGD as a distinct entity or as a variant presentation of GD. That's it. I wouldn't call even that ringing endorsement of an ROGD-type phenomenon, but that seems to have been as close as you could find.
        • The MEDRS professional sources you offered don't even go that far, noting for example a proposed clinical phenomenon that may or may not warrant further peer-reviewed scientific investigation (2018) or a proposed phenomenon, with insufficient peer-reviewed scientific evidence to support its implementation and/or use within clinical, community, social and legal settings (2019). These don't concur that there is evidence of an ROGD-type phenomenon; your suggestion that they do, and that therefore the ROGD hypotheses are less than FRINGE, is laughable - and more recent professional position statements have become more rather than less skeptical.
        • You also included a 2020 paper that says Some respondents depicted referrals with traits of the so-called “rapid onset” of gender incongruence... However, this is a very complex phenomenon that needs further exploration. No "concurrence" from researchers there, either, that I can see, and no statement that the very complex phenomenon they do recognize is ROGD-type - they attribute that depiction to others.
        • Other than that, you presented a three-author letter (2019) and a single-author commentary (2020), neither being subject to peer review, and the infamous "Special Article" from BJPsych, which you included as supporting your position without acknowledging that its publication (in its initial version), was so controversial that it forced the journal to revise its peer review process, as documented here. If that is your idea of MEDRS documenting that researchers concur that there is evidence of an ROGD-type phenomenon and that the "contagion" hypothesis is not WP:FRINGE, then I am forced to conclude you may not understand medical sourcing as well as you lead on. Newimpartial (talk) 14:03, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • This is mostly either addressed elsewhere, simple differences in reading the text, or handwaving, but I'll address the BJPsych matter. The changes they made to the way they present certain things is completely irrelevant to my point. It was pointedly not retracted, because it does not meet that criteria. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:57, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • In spite of your galloping gish, all you have actually presented in terms of MEDRS is two sources finding that there is reason to investigate an ROGD-type phenomenon, one of which was so controversial that, while not retracted, it was the reason BJPsych revised its editorial policy. Compared to the many, many MEDRS that are critical of the ROGD hypothesis and the methodologies employed by the only study that found support for it, your point that there is evidence of an ROGD-type phenomenon is quite literally WP:FRINGE - WP policy specifying that an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views ... in its particular field are FRINGE. That is exactly what we see here. Newimpartial (talk) 18:45, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's an article on a book, whose premise is built on the concept of ROGD, and is somewhat responsible for the increase in awareness of it outside of the medical community. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:36, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• To say "female adolescent gender dysphoria" is to beg the question. Shrier is not interested in "girls who falsely present as dysphoric", but primarily in transgender men and non-binary people, who she views as female. To refute ROGD according to your own logic is then to simply say that there has not been any evidence presented that a hugely increased number of people are falsely identifying as transgender, and as such there's no reason such a claim should be taken seriously. — Bilorv (talk) 21:37, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not offering an opinion on whether Shrier is right or on the ground truth of what these cases "really are", but trying to efficiently paraphrase her position, which means using language similar to hers. As other people have pointed out up above on this talk page, criticizing the evidence is not the same as refutation (which is what people are in effect trying to add to the article). A giant (UK) or meteoric (US) rate jump, if not well explained by natural causes, is reason to not dismiss such a claim. That is the normal state of social science: the question is open, totally satisfactory all-resolving data are hard to get, partial evidence stands (pointing in several directions), legitimate differences of opinion persist until better data become available. Sesquivalent (talk) 22:06, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The fact the question is somewhat open on what is driving the increase in people seeking transition doesn't mean we need to make all hypotheses equivalent in merit. ROGD has no basis in sound data, and as such should not be given much merit unless relevant experts agree or support it. As far as I am aware, the overwhelmingly dominant hypothesis is that the increased exposure to and acceptance of trans people in society (in large part thanks to the internet) is the main driving force.Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:18, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    At the same time, researchers have also noted that doesn't explain the sex ratio being so lopsided, and that being so among youths when greater social acceptance would seem to have equal effects on all ages. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:47, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    When it is the internet driving that acceptance, age groups that are native to the internet will be much more affected than other age groups. In terms of the sex ratio, I'd appreciate it if you could share some sources describing that ratio (the ROGD study had sampling issues so it can't be relied on for that). Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 09:38, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Despite my disagreements with your positions, I'm very much in agreement on wanting to see solid numbers on exactly what the phenomenon being discussed is; by what amount has the number of transitioning people changed over the years, and how has the sex ratio changed in that time period. Facts are what is needed to get more light than heat on the subject. *Dan T.* (talk) 14:38, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Off-topic, but this is an instance where our reactions reveal our priors/underlying assumptions. For example, for people who see trans identity as rooted in the underlying diversity of human genetic potential, it is expected that AFAB and AMAB people would express trans identity to a somewhat similar extent, and enduring differences would be surprising. On the other hand, for those who see trans identity as based in psychopathology, there is no particular reason to expect such a pathology to develop among AFAB people to parallel what they see as the pathologies of AMAB people that cause gender dysphoria, so increases within the AFAB population are seen as a new and unwelcome development. Newimpartial (talk) 14:49, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I think you'll find it's more complicated than that. @Dtobias, I haven't looked up these stats for years, but if memory serves, then back in the 1980s and 1990s, the (biological) sex ratio was generally estimated at about 4:1 MTF. The 4:1 male predominance has been explained as being expected because it's the same skewed sex ratio seen in autism. (The people who expected this presumably support the model of of trans identity as being a type of congenital neurodiversity.) In recent years, I've seen news reports that (some?) clinics have a substantial majority of afab clients, but I've never bothered to look up proper stats myself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:58, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CrossroadsI'm not sure I agree with your summaries of your own sources. Most of the sources you've posted seem to disagree with you that ROGD is a thing. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 18:37, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My point has never been that ROGD is definitely "a thing", just that many MEDRS consider the possibility that it is "a thing" and remain open to further research on that possibility, and that therefore its status shouldn't be negatively exaggerated. Crossroads ^-talk- 07:04, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly have some very strong opinions on this topic and a lot of the opinions you've posted here are wp:or and not well supported by reliable scientific sources or even necessarily your own sources. I still have some serious concerns about the tone and weighting of the article and I'd like to work to build a consensus to improve it. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 16:04, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reflist Talk