Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 357: Line 357:


* Anybody who uses biased terms like "TERF" and "transphobic dog whistle" has absolutely no business judging what constitutes NPOV on this subject. [[User:Dtobias|*Dan T.*]] ([[User talk:Dtobias|talk]]) 23:03, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
* Anybody who uses biased terms like "TERF" and "transphobic dog whistle" has absolutely no business judging what constitutes NPOV on this subject. [[User:Dtobias|*Dan T.*]] ([[User talk:Dtobias|talk]]) 23:03, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
** Says the editor who wrote {{tq|The terminology "Assigned Female/Male At Birth" embeds the ideology this book is criticizing in the article about it}} above, insisting without evidence that the terms are {{tq|ideological}} and refusing to read the extensive RS literature defining and using the terms. Pot::Kettle. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 02:15, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
** Says the editor who wrote {{tq|The terminology "Assigned Female/Male At Birth" embeds the ideology this book is criticizing in the article about it}} above, insisting without evidence that the terms are {{tq|ideological}} and refusing to read the extensive RS literature defining and using the terms. Pot::Kettle.
** Also, there is absolutely wrong with referring to a term as a {{tq|transphobic dog whistle}}. If an editor can't tell the difference between a discussion of how terminology is used and casting ASPERSIONS on the motives of other editors, well, [[WP:CIR|competence is required]], especially in a discretionary sanctions area. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 02:15, 5 October 2021 (UTC)


{{reflist-talk}}
{{reflist-talk}}

Revision as of 02:23, 5 October 2021

Deletion of Revisions

The addition of Jesse Singal's rebuttal of the Science-Based Medicine articles has been repeatedly removed from this page. This seems odd, considering that the addition of this recent context does not violate any Wikipedia guidelines. His article forced Science-based medicine to make a number of corrections, though, to date, they have not fixed everything. If this information has been removed by an editor for partisan or ideological purposes, it would be deeply distressing. If the purpose of the removal is for something other than personal bias on the part of the editor, I would like to ask for a legitimate explanation as to why the info was removed.

Personally, I can see no reason that the removal of Jesse Singal's reporting is legitimate. It adds important context for the reader as to the quality of Science-Based Medicine's critique of Irreversible Damage. The referenced article can be found and examined here: [1]— Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.244.3.210 (talk)

The source you tried to add is a weblog. Do you have a policy-based reason to include it? The way you tried to do it seemed likely to confuse the reader by presenting self-published "rebuttals" to reliable publications as though they were all on the same level of authority. Newimpartial (talk) 15:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SBM doesn't strike me as particularly reliable given the large number of errors in their articles and the obvious ideological bias, as well as the editor's propensity to make straw man arguments about gender critical people. *Dan T.* (talk) 04:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not that consensus can’t change, but the summary at WP:RSP is that SBM is generally considered reliable with the caveat that it isn’t MEDRS. It seems reasonably used in this article. The claims are clearly attributed, and it’s talking more about the actions SBM took rather than saying in Wikivoice that their response was correct. POLITANVM talk 04:37, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think anyone is objecting to the use of SBM on the page. It is the fact that, because this book is contentious, every effort to provide the reader with as unbiased a view of the available information should be taken. In my estimation, contextualizing the absolutely legitimate critique of this one particular SBM article is not only valuable but needed, given how controversial the topic is and the significantly egregious errors in the articles. Ending the paragraph with SBM's articles to this topic gives them an air of conclusiveness and definitiveness, which they do not have in this case. Including a small note of Singal's critique allows the reader to see that these issues are not settled. This reflects the inherent truth of the situation, more than SBM stamping the entire episode with something akin to a royal seal, avoids bias, and provides the reader with valuable context with which they can explore and decide for themselves. -MN 10:42, 22 July 2021 (EST)
Is there evidence that we have an absolutely legitimate critique of this one particular SBM article? What it seems that we have is a blog that one IP editor happens to favor - that doesn't usually translate as absolutely legitimate critique. If it were, we would normally have a RS saying so. Newimpartial (talk) 14:42, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read Singal's article? It is perfectly legitimate to any reasonable person, so much so that SBM made several corrections already. I think you are using language here, like your seemingly pejorative use of the word "blog," which reveals that you have a significant bias in this situation. This bias is precisely why I think the inclusion of Singal's critique should be noted on the page. -MN 10:53, 22 July 2021 (EST)
Yes, I read the blog post, which managed to balance sloppiness and pedantry in equal measure. That isn't bias speaking, except a certain bias I have for clean writing when it comes to difficult topics. In any case, it isn't a genre of source policy suggests that we include in WP articles, and you haven't offered any policy-based support for inclusion. Newimpartial (talk) 14:59, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Like Newimpartial said, the bias here is for Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines, which are pretty clear on the reliability of self-published blogs (see WP:BLOGS). As a friendly note, you may find WP:THREAD to be a helpful guide for indenting and signing talk page posts. POLITANVM talk 15:04, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Singal isn't just some rando though. He's a journalist who has done a lot of writing on trans issues including for major RS such as The Atlantic. The recently added text (These articles have, in turn, received criticism for their own errors and false information.) was, I agree, inappropriate, since it puts a contentious claim (that the articles contain errors and false information) in wikivoice. But I think it's appropriate to have a sentence about the Singal criticism using in-text attribution. If the claim is something like "Journalist Jesse Singal published a criticism of SBM's coverage, stating that X, Y, and Z." then there's no issue of verifiability. The only question is of WP:DUE weight, but given that the author is an established journalist with experience in this subject area, I don't think it's undue (though it would be even more of a slam dunk if Singal's criticism was itself covered in independent RS). Colin M (talk) 23:11, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If by (not) just some rando you mean someone with a clear pro-desistance POV on trans issues, I agree. While the summer 2018 cover piece in The Atlantic wasn't labelled "Opinion", the fact that The Atlantic had to run a series of critical responses after publishing it shows me that it is clearly opinion-ated. I am not saying that Singal's views need necessarily be excluded from this article, but he doesn't have the kind of recognized expertise on trans issues that the WP:SPS carve-out for experts would apply. We need a better source than this blog, I'm afraid, even for an attributed statement. Newimpartial (talk) 23:38, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SPS is a facet of verifiability. But there is no question that Singal's article verifies a claim of the form I mentioned above ("Journalist Jesse Singal published a criticism of SBM's coverage, stating that X, Y, and Z."). SPS would only be relevant if we were repeating a claim from the Singal piece itself (e.g. to take a random example, "Physicians Novella and Gorski have no firsthand experience with youth gender medicine") and citing Singal. Colin M (talk) 16:05, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The section WP:SPS is a subsection of WP:NOTRELIABLE, and specifies, Anyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert. That is why self-published material such as ... personal websites ... and social media postings are largely not acceptable as sources. It also states if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources. Normally, self-published commentators become DUE when they are covered in Reliable Sources, which is not the case here, so I just haven't seen why the clear cues in WP:SPS should not be followed in this case. Newimpartial (talk) 16:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the creation of an article on Jesse Singal has not made this self-published material more appropriate for inclusion. Newimpartial (talk) 21:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Colin M. Singal clearly has substantial expertise in this area and per WP:SPS “Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications” we should include this, but with clear attribution to Singal. Yes, Singal’s perspectives are not liked by many as pointed out by Newimpartial—but this does not discredit his expertise in the area. Indeed, we need to be careful to not exclude views because they are unpopular--especially in light of the substantial number of activists who shape the discourse on this topic.-Pengortm (talk) 22:32, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What is the evidence for this expertise? This has been alleged, but no evidence of recognition as a subject-matter expert in a relevant domain has been put forward here. Newimpartial (talk) 00:25, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Singal is pretty clearly a specialized journalist in the sciences--especially related to psychology and trans issues. The general expertise in science and psychology can be seen here [1]. Even a critic of his acknowledges that "Jesse Singal has become a leading public intellectual and one of the most prominent journalists covering trans issues, including but not limited to adolescent transition." [2]. Another critic notes " Singal is considered one of the leading voices in journalism on trans issues" [3].al While I respect that many disagree with Singal's coverage and conclusions, he's clearly an expert journalist in this area and his comments should be included. -Pengortm (talk) 16:06, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You have provided three sources on Singal's expertise; thank you. The first is his own website, which had no bearing on this discussion, and did you actually read the other two? The quotes you have provided are both brutally ripped of context: neither source agrees that he is an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications - instead, the two independent sources you have provided both argue that Singal is decidedly unreliable on trans issues.
Also, we are in the "D" phase of "BRD", here - please don't reinsert disputed text until we are done. Thanks. Newimpartial (talk) 16:20, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While those sources individually reject Singal, they nevertheless recognize his general prominence on the topic in addition to rebutting him, which counts for something. Still, how to define 'expertise' for journalists is fuzzy at best. Secondary sources covering this would help decide the matter. Crossroads -talk- 04:38, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/science-based-medicines-coverage

Psychology Today

Hey @Crossroads: and @Banglange: if y'all are still interested in continuing the discussion regarding the reliability of Psychology Today. I kindly ask you two to discuss it here.CycoMa (talk) 14:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My fault, I apologize. I misinterpreted which talk button meant talking where. My comment is/was: My understanding is that blogs count as SPSs and RSs according to the author. As far as I can tell, Turban appears still to be in training rather than being an established expert. So, I don't think it's a contradiction to have Psych Today in other articles, but not in this one. No?Banglange (talk) 01:55, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think @Crossroads:?CycoMa (talk) 05:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Banglange, what makes you think he is still in training? I think quality-wise it is about on-par with most other sources here. If it is removed, then other editors will wish to remove other sources. Ultimately it serves the purpose of NPOV of showing the variety of views on the subject. Crossroads -talk- 05:16, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Banglange:?CycoMa (talk) 00:58, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In his Psychology Today bio (https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/contributors/jack-turban-md-mhs), he identifies himself as a "fellow," which is a training level after "resident." I have no idea what other editors may or may not want, but according https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources, blogs like the ones in Psych Today would go according to the expert status of the author, not the location of the blog. One cannot be both an expert and trainee at the same time.Banglange (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Assigned Female At Birth"

The terminology "Assigned Female/Male At Birth" embeds the ideology this book is criticizing in the article about it. It is nonsense as an "objective" statement of fact; biological sex is not "assigned" by anybody (doctor or Sorting Hat), it is observed, often well before birth. The only exception is for extremely rare intersex conditions where the sex is ambiguous. *Dan T.* (talk) 00:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but both the CDC [1] and NHS[2] disagree with you. I would recommend that you the Sex assignment article to see an overview how the terminology is currently used by medical professionals and researchers. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:43, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sideswipe9th: random question doesn’t assigned sex basically mean observing the genitals and say “it’s a boy”.CycoMa (talk) 01:52, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From Sex assignment: "Assignment may be done prior to birth through prenatal sex discernment. In the majority of births, a relative, midwife, nurse or physician inspects the genitalia when the baby is delivered and sex is assigned without ambiguity." Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:55, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Firefangledfeathers: you forgot the first sentence that says.
Sex assignment (sometimes known as gender assignment) is the discernment of an infant's sex at birth.
Yeah that kinda sounds the definition of sex assignment I was saying.CycoMa (talk) 02:02, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Assigned" is a silly word for that; "observed" would make more sense. But that wouldn't accomplish the ideological objective of forcing everybody to think of it as if it's an arbitrary assignment instead of a biological fact. *Dan T.* (talk) 02:51, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dtobias, "Observed gender at birth" finds 0 results on Google Scholar and 6 on Google while "assigned gender at birth" finds 823 and 37,000 respectively. Many of the cited sources use the term "assigned gender at birth" while none use the term "observed gender at birth". Independent of whether "assigned gender at birth" is suitable terminology to use, "observed gender at birth" absolutely isn't, since essentially inventing our own jargon would run counter to the purpose of Wikipedia.
More broadly speaking, I notice that you've been involved in discussions about this on this talk page before, and brought up many of the same things, including the cute Sorting Hat reference. You've repeatedly been directed to Wikipedia articles and other sources which indicate that much of what you're saying is either untrue or logically flawed, and you've found no consensus to make any changes (nor, as far as I've seen, have you explicitly suggested any). Now, in addition to repeating the same argument, you seem to be accusing unnamed editors of having an ideological objective of forcing everybody to think a certain way. Out of a genuine desire for productive discussion, I hope you'll think carefully about your path forward here. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 03:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@CycoMa: while I'm not a midwife, doctor, or parent, that is my understanding of how it works at least simplistically. Outside of circumstances where some form of genetic testing is done prior to or shortly after birth, it is assigned based genitalia either via ultrasound some time after the 12th week, or via visual inspection at the time of birth. The Sex assignment article would be the place to start if you want to understand it further. Why do you ask? Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sideswipe9th: honestly this chat is being WP:NOTFORUM Op didn’t even provide sources. Also they don’t really know what assigned sex means.CycoMa (talk) 02:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@CycoMa: yeah that is true. Question took me aback is all, that'll teach me to edit before bedtime! Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m probably just gonna collapse this discussion until someone provides sources or actually learns what assigned sex means.CycoMa (talk) 02:16, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The saying appears in few or no sources on the topic of this book. This book is about children of the female sex. The phrase "assigned female at birth", in contexts like these, often functions as an ideologically-laden euphemism that converts a material fact into a mere arbitrary social convention and pushes it into the distant past - at birth - rather than something that exists in the present. While it is true that persons are placed into a male or female category when born by medical professionals who observe what they are, and that "assign" has at times been historically used to refer to this process, humans are also literally of a particular sex, same as any other mammal. Of course, we wouldn't refer to the individuals in questions as girls in wikivoice either, not only per GENDERID but because this likewise conflates sex and gender just like the "assigned at birth" euphemism does. It would be far better and more neutral to our readers to reword this as an attribution to Shrier. Use of this phrase results in controversy every time it happens because the meaning of "assign" used here is bizarre and contrary to its use in WP:PLAINENGLISH. Crossroads -talk- 03:17, 2 October 2021 (UTC) Updated Crossroads -talk- 03:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Crossroads, in past discussions of this issue I've had trouble understanding how the disputed content could be reworded as an attribution in a neutral way. If you have proposed wording, or at least a general idea of how it might be worded, would you mind sharing? ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 03:22, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We can simply change Shrier states that there was a "sudden, severe spike in transgender identification" among teenagers assigned female at birth[note 1] during the 2010s to not truncate the quote; like this: According to Shrier, there was a "sudden, severe spike in transgender identification among adolescent girls" during the 2010s. Then change She describes what she sees as difficulties facing teenagers who were assigned female at birth:[note 1] isolation, online social dynamics, restrictive gender and sexuality labels, unwelcome physical changes and sexual attention. to According to Shrier, teenage girls face isolation, online social dynamics, restrictive gender and sexuality labels, unwelcome physical changes and sexual attention.. We could even put quotes around "teenage girls" if we must. But either way, it is attributed as Shrier's view. Putting 'assigned at birth' completely garbles what is being said to the point of meaninglessness. Her whole philosophy is that the individuals in question were girls to begin with and that they all have this in common, and that these difficulties motivate 'escaping'. I see no reason to sanitize this. We don't in the other sentences. Crossroads -talk- 03:53, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Misgendering trans boys, even in an attributed quote, does not help make this article more neutral. I think you are right to point out the inconsistency in the way other sentences treat this issue. I would advocate for a solution oriented in the other direction: we should elide and rephrase the other sentences. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:59, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The book isn't about trans boys per se. Aside from them, and non-binary persons, it discusses detransitioners quite a bit, as well as those who felt gender-related issues but never actually identified outside of female. Would those latter groups call themselves "assigned" female? Doubtful. It's not that other sentences conflict directly; what I mean is that the article in general accurately relays the views of the book and its reviewers, except for these two spots. I don't see how relaying Shrier's views accurately reflects on anyone but her or implies anything outside of that. Crossroads -talk- 04:08, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Crossroads here--in the passage above we are mixing up the meaning of Shrier's words currently and it would be better to directly quote her or if we paraphrase her paraphrase in a way that is more true to her words. More generally, the term "natal female" would be a more neutral term than AFAB. - Pengortm (talk) 04:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no reason to believe that women who have detransitioned, or cisgender girls/women with gender dysphoria, would deny their being assigned female at birth or reject the label. I do have reason to believe that trans boys would reject the label girls, and Shrier is absolutely (though not exclusively) discussing trans boys. As for your point about relating Shrier's views, I agree in part. That said, our willingness to uncritically relay Shrier's views in the lead is an NPOV problem, and that does reflect poorly on us. I find your suggested change to worsen that problem. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Many detransitioners, and those who did not consider transition to be the way to go, don't consider their sex to be a mere assignment. But in any case, you did inspire me to try to combine some of the lead material and sidestep one of the uses of the controversial turn of phrase. This is the result, and I think that this could be quite agreeable. Hopefully. I see no problem with it, anyway. Crossroads -talk- 04:53, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't see this as I was posting my comment below. Now, CycoMa has reverted your change without explanation...
    CycoMa? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:57, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Crossroads' recent edit addresses Dtobias/Dan T.'s objection and is neutral to negligibly positive on my end. If there are other editors who agree that there's an issue with affording Shrier's views too much uncritical publication in the lead, it might help to discuss in a separate section. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just so it is clear, I do not see any consensus emerging in the above section for this edit. Agreement by Firefangledfeathers does not equal consensus, and the previous text (including "assigned female at birth") emerged from the long discussion in Archive 5 of this Talk page. Crossroads, your BOLD "shortening" is not supported by consensus here, or by WP:ONUS, or by BRD, so you really ought to self-report until WP:CON is met. Newimpartial (talk) 16:42, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Replying up here is confusing. My reply to this is below; please keep future comments down there so this isn't a tangled mess. Crossroads -talk- 16:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I placed this comment here because you were repeatedly claiming, apparently based on this fragment of the discussion, that there was consensus for your edit, even though I see no evidence for that claim based on this portion and even less plausibility for it when following the discussion to the end. But substantive discussion can certainly take place below. And the "tangled mess" this time was here before I arrived. :p. Newimpartial (talk) 17:06, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously it feels like y’all aren’t trying to help the article. Please try to discuss ways to help the article or else I’m gonna collapse this article for WP:NOTFORUM. This your last chance.CycoMa (talk) 03:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't do that. There's a specific wording/content discussion now. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:30, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Firefangledfeathers: fine I’ll give this discussion a chance. But if I see one more case of WP:NOTFORUM it’s collapse time.CycoMa (talk) 03:40, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Crossroads, it looks to me as though Dan's (largely FORUM) comment has provoked you to rehash your (rejected) argument, which dominates Archive 5 of this talk page, that "sex assigned at birth" is a POV term. You haven't had much success with that argument, but I admit that this page has too few participants to make a clear determination anyway. I suggest that you take it to WP:NPOVN rather than rehashing it here, again and again. Newimpartial (talk) 14:11, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Terminology | Adolescent and School Health". Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). December 18, 2019. Archived from the original on May 7, 2020. Retrieved May 23, 2020.
  2. ^ "Inclusive Language". NHS Digital service manual. Retrieved 2 October 2021.
I agree with Newimpartial here, and fully support their and CycoMa's reverts. Sex assigned at birth is the terminology that's appropriate here, as it is used within the medical field. If Crossroads or *Dan T.* has a problem with that, then WP:NPOVN seems like the appropriate forum to discuss it as it will affect multiple articles across the site.
I also think the use of the term "social contagion" in the lead is giving too much weight to a theory that is subject to heavy controversy (ROGD), and isn't supported, discussed, or criticised in the article body at least as far as I can tell. It's also important to point out that the theory has been pretty widely denounced and discredited by other researchers in that field. I haven't had a chance to read through all the talk archives yet though to find out if this has already been discussed and consensus established on it. If you're aware of prior discussion so I can get up to speed quickly, I'd appreciate a link. Otherwise I'll be archive diving for a while. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:48, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sideswipe9th: ROPD technically speaking hasn’t been discredited it’s more in a situation where it isn’t recognized. There is a difference between something not being recognized and something being discredited. CycoMa (talk) 15:51, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also with regards to assigned sex. I believe this all boils down to what sex assignment means. Although do vary what sex assignment means but sources I have read would tell you that technology sex assignment more accurately means writing the baby off as this sex or that sex. It doesn’t really mean what most people think it means.CycoMa (talk) 15:57, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Like the doctors written me off as a boy because they saw my genitals and said it’s a boy.CycoMa (talk) 15:58, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Irony of irony's here given that we're on Wikipedia, but uh [Citation needed] @CycoMa:. My understanding of the literature in the field, as well as recent media coverage of it, is that the theory is not taken seriously by any of the major transgender health organisations. WPATH in 2018 said "The term “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD)” is not a medical entity recognized by any major professional association, nor is it listed as a subtype or classification in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) or International Classification of Diseases (ICD). Therefore, it constitutes nothing more than an acronym created to describe a proposed clinical phenomenon that may or may not warrant further peer-reviewed scientific investigation". AusPATH in 2019 said “The term ‘rapid onset gender dysphoria’ is not, and has never been, a diagnosis or health condition but has been used in a single report describing parental perception of their adolescent’s gender identity without exploration of the gender identity and experiences of the adolescents themselves,”. Of course discussions of this nature are almost certainly better suited to the ROGD talk pages, I'd still like to know what you're basing that claim on. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sideswipe9th: um according to the Wikipedia article on the topic there are researchers who are noticing a increase rise in transgender youth. Also judging by the article the topic seems to be way too politicized.CycoMa (talk) 16:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@CycoMa: I'm aware of those discussions, however most credible researchers state this is more akin to increased numbers of homosexuals in the years after decriminalisation of homosexuality, left-handedness in the mid to late 20th century after school teachers stopped trying to force all children to be right handed through corporal punishment, or neurodiversities like ADHD and autism in the early 2000s. Rather than a social contagion, or as Schrier says something that vulnerable teens are self identifying with, it is merely a logical conclusion due to the wider acceptance and awareness of trans people in society. The current WPATH president has said that instead of being something rare, as it previously was thought, transgender should be seen as a normal variation in human expression, with as many as 1 in 100 now being recognised and identified as trans in some fashion.
Okay whoever you are please sign your comments. And just to make things clear what I said wasn't my interpretation, it was on the article for ROGD researchers have noticed a rise in transgender youth in recent years. Also, I recommend you read WP:NOTFORUM.CycoMa (talk) 17:05, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I can't quite follow you, CycoMa. What do you think most people think it means?
As far as ROGD is concerned, a wide variety of commentators - including ones with actual expertise in the field - recognize that self-reported gender dysphoria has increased in many places over the last 10 or 15 years, without subscribing to the tropes of ROGD (such as social contagion, etc.) as an explanation. I would also point out that an impartial observer would expect for detransition rates, broadly construed, to increase roughly in proportion to rates of reported gender dysphoria, which seems to be exactly what has happened and which therefore does not require an extra-wheel framework, like ROGD, to explain. Newimpartial (talk) 16:05, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Newimpartial: Like I said I believe the whole assigned sex thing just goes down to what they mean they say assigned sex.
But, to be brutally honest with you I don’t know what to think about that terminology anymore.CycoMa (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the literature on assigned sex was pretty clear, tbh.
Anf as far as ROGD is concerned, that is a very specific interpretation of the rise in transgender youth, and is not an interpretation supported by actual scholarship, AFAICT. Newimpartial (talk) 16:17, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Newimpartial: Um just to make things clears regarding my statement of ROGD that was something the article on the topic said that was not my interpretation. They mention the increase isn’t currently known tho so I can’t really say much on that. To be real with you I don’t care about ROGD, the reason I’m here is because this topic has too much edit warring.
But anyway what I was trying to say with assigned sex is this. Assigned sex doesn’t really mean they picked your sex for you at birth. Reliable sources on it and the Wikipedia article on sex assignment would say it’s basically judging your sex characteristic at birth and writing you off as this sex.CycoMa (talk) 16:28, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@CycoMa: I have to agree with Newimpartial here. The literature on assigned sex at birth is pretty clear, which is why it is used in that way by major medical bodies like the CDC or NHS. There are some people, namely transgender and intersex, for whom the initial assignment is faulty. This is partially why historically Sex reassignment surgery has that name, as the surgery was seen as correcting a mistake in the original assignment. The main group of people who object to the terminology "assigned female/male at birth" are transphobic, and tend to fall into one or more of the major anti-transgender groups eg;TERF, GC, etc. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:46, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sideswipe9th: but my definition of assigned sex isn't wrong isn't it. Assigned sex does mean observing sex characteristics and writing them off as this sex. Am I not wrong? That's how reliable sources define it.CycoMa (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sideswipe9th, I am not aware of any medical sources that state the assignment of sex in a person who later comes out as transgender was a "faulty" assignment. That is what trans people are transitioning from, medically, after all. Sex reassignment having that name implies no such thing. And the use of this terminology outside of very rare contexts where sex is ambiguous is rather new. Do not cast WP:ASPERSIONS on editors who question the use of this terminology. Crossroads -talk- 16:58, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@CycoMa: for clarity sake, could you please restate what the definition you're using is? As I think this may be the confusion between the three of us. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:01, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sideswipe9th: the article on sex assignment literally says this.
Sex assignment (sometimes known as gender assignment) is the discernment of an infant's sex at birth.
Isn't the definition of sex assignment that I have been saying align with that definition?CycoMa (talk) 17:08, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding pointing to old discussions, consensus can change. Editors had reached agreement above that the lead could be shortened and those sentences combined, like this. Nothing was added, not "girls", not anything; it was only subtraction. There is nothing gained by keeping "assigned" in the lead except attracting controversy due to the atypical meaning of "assigned" and the fact we are not talking about newborns. Crossroads -talk- 16:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Crossroads: you are correct in saying that consensus can change, however you have not tried to establish a new consensus here. The edit you made was not discussed prior to making it. While I understand WP:BOLD, given that we were already discussing this from the initial comments made by *Dan T.*, it would have been more appropriate for you to propose and us to critique the phrasing when establishing a new consensus. As for keeping "assigned", while I understand that the author of this book does not like it, it is the correct terminology to use per my discussion points raised above. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Regarding this, Dtobias obviously opposes the term, Pengortm supports my edit, I also do, and finally Firefangledfeathers supported it. 4 editors. I was there for Archive 5, and what it was about was very particular uses of "girls" at that time. It was never that we cannot combine these sentences or that certain phrasing must appear in the lead. There was no closure or any official finding of the sort, and again, consensus can change. I cannot see the consensus you claim exists there, likewise. Lastly, WP:ONUS supports me. It states, "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." The phrase "assigned female at birth" clearly lacks consensus at this time, and therefore should not be included; we can easily write around it, as I did and received support for. Crossroads -talk- 16:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see any such consensus above. At least three editors have objected to your proposal (myself, CycoMa and Sideswipe9th), so even if three or four editors support your change it doesn't have consensus. There is a very strong argument that the stable version of the article, including AFAB language, had achieved WP:CON and no evidence yet that the consensus has, in fact, changed. And by removing AFAB and moving directly to "girls" as the group under discussion you have indeed made a BOLD change to the lead section. Hiding behind the fact that you did so by removing rather than adding words is rather beneath you, I would have thought. TBCH I thought you were smarter than this.
      • And your argument that this meaning of "assigned" is atypical, which I have seen you make at least half a dozen times on various pages in various ways, needs to be supported by at least some sort of evidence if you expect anyone to take it seriously. Right now it just reads as a handwave to a certain FRINGE POV on trans issues, whether you intend it to or not. *** The above bullets refer to your original bullet, and I have moved them to this level to avoid further entanglement. In response to your e/c addendum, you have frequently made the argument that long-term stable content is deemed to achieve WP:CON, and in the case of "assigned female at birth" we had an extensive discussion which, while not formally closed, supported this language. If you are not being disingenuous in where you have placed the goal posts this time, I don't know what you think you are actually doing, since it isn't compliant with either actual policy or what you have frequently interpreted policy to be. Newimpartial (talk) 17:03, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would argue that you're reading WP:ONUS wrong in this case @Crossroads:. The phrase "assigned female at birth" is WP:NPOV and supported by established medical literature. To change it, as you have once again done is arguably an edit war per WP:EW. There is a reason why both CycoMa and Newimpartial have reverted your attempts at including this edit. Consensus for it has not been established. WP:CONSENSUS is clear that consensus is neither unanimity nor a simple vote. It is a process "to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." That process has not been done in this case, you have no addressed the criticisms of this edit. WP:STATUSQUO states that "If there is a dispute, editors should work towards consensus. Instead of engaging in an edit war, which is harmful, propose your reverted change on the article's talk page or pursue other dispute resolution alternatives. During a dispute discussion, until a consensus is established, you should not revert away from the status quo (except in cases where contentious material should be immediately removed, such as biographies of living people, or material about living people in other articles).". Your edit is moving us away from the established status quo, and if reverted again which I am tempted to do, would be an edit war per WP:3RR. Please stop doing that and propose the change here, along with your reasons for/against it so that we can establish consensus. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:14, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Sideswipe9th: just to make things clear I only reverted because I feel like this needs to be discussed more. @Crossroads: I'll side with your edits with you explain yourself a bit more.CycoMa (talk) 17:18, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • (edit conflict) CycoMa's only objection was a single revert with literally zero explanation then or later despite copious discussion since then. All edits should be explained per WP:EDITCON. Perhaps he could explain his current view on the edit.
        • As for the other two, there seemed to be the impression that new terminology had been added, which was not the case.
        • As for "atypical", it's clear to English speakers that usually the term "assign" is used when making basically arbitrary divisions. What is being assigned started in the mind of the assigner rather than in reality, in this sense. I know you've said before you don't hold the view that sex does not exist in reality, which would be its own fringe view, but such terminology implies that sex is an assignment, a mere label, rather than a material fact. And, we aren't talking about newborns, so whatever happened "at birth" is not relevant. What is being discussed is a trait that exists later in life. What might that trait be, I wonder. Lest someone misinterpret my words, none of this negates the existence of the sex and gender distinction or medical change to sex characteristics.
        • As for claims I am disingenuous, nope. This isn't a case where one person is objecting to the text and pretending it never had consensus, where I've pointed to implicit consensus before. We had a discussion above and the edit seemed to be an improvement. You are the one repeatedly pointing to "Archive 5" as though it holds any authority. This sort of insistence on keeping the old wording is what WP:STONEWALLING is against. Crossroads -talk- 17:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Bullpucky. There was an extensive discussion previously, now archived. As a result of that, there was a stable wording. Based on one editor agreeing with your proposed change and no replies on the Talk page for a couple of hours (even though the edit itself was reverted), you argue that your bold version had consensus. That just isn't the way literally anything works.
          • And would you stop implying that only the addition (and not the subtraction) of words can change the decoration and connotation of the lead section. I really thought you were smarter than this.
          • And no, I never stated or implied that sex does not exist in reality. Stop making things up. Saying that something is socially constructed is pretty much the opposite of saying it does not exist, and philosophical realists who are also social constructionists do not believe that construction is ex nihilo. Do better. Newimpartial (talk) 17:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • The term "Stonewalling" is a bit ironic here, given the British organization involved heavily in this culture war. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:02, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have now reverted the article back to WP:STATUSQUO. Please do not make another attempt at adding this passage @Crossroads: until consensus has been established. Otherwise I will have to open a WP:3RR/WP:4RR dispute. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:24, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sideswipe9th, that medical sources say "assigned female at birth" sometimes is not a reason to use that technical phrase in this specific spot. Nobody has given a policy or guideline based reason not to simply combine these sentences. Crossroads -talk- 17:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Crossroads, you should just admit by now that "assigned" as in "sex assigned at birth" is no longer a technical phrase but is the everyday term used generally, byjournalists and academics as well as medical and legal specialists in this field. You can't retroactively reverse that shift, which which I have laboriously provided links for you in previous discussions.
          • As far as a policy or guideline based reason, in the discussion in Archive 5 of this page it was clarified for you - at great length and not just by me - that girls is a POV term for the people Shrier was talking about (at least some of them), not a neutral reason. It is therefore a violation of both WP:NPOV and MOS:GENDERID to present these young people as "girls", which is what your combination of sentences, in fact, achieved, whether intentionally or not. Newimpartial (talk) 17:41, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sometimes I feel I've woken up in the looking-glass world or the Bizarro World, where perfectly normal terminology in use for centuries and defined in dictionaries is "POV" and "fringe", while ideologically-motivated neologisms are "NPOV" and standard. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • What matters on Wikipedia is the way things are understood and presented by reliable sources published over the last 15 or 20 years. The perspectives of pre-"Bizarro World" sages and contrarian sleuths aren't really relevant to WP disputes, from the perspective of policy. Newimpartial (talk) 18:05, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Addressing some of your points here @Crossroads:.
            • I know you've said before you don't hold the view that sex does not exist in reality. I'm not sure if this is directed at me or Newimpartial. I don't believe anyone has made that claim here and I'm not sure why you feel it is relevant to this discussion.
            • but such terminology implies that sex is an assignment, a mere label, rather than a material fact. Sex is an assignment, hence why medical literature and organisations use the term "assigned female/male at birth".
            • And, we aren't talking about newborns, so whatever happened "at birth" is not relevant. Your sex assignment at birth remains your sex assignment in both childhood, adolescence, and adulthood unless you go down one of a number of pathways to change it later in life. The exact way to do that varies depending on where in the world you live. If you do not change your sex assignment later in life, then you are always known as "assigned female/male at birth", regardless of your age. That is how the phrase is known and used in English and thusly reflected in the medical literature.
            • This isn't a case where one person is objecting to the text and pretending it never had consensus, where I've pointed to implicit consensus before. We had a discussion above and the edit seemed to be an improvement. Correction, you felt the edit was an improvement. Three editors have disagreed with you, and asked you to explain. You have yet to do so, and yet to do so while addressing our concerns per WP:CONSENSUS The edit content was not discussed before you proposed it.
            • This sort of insistence on keeping the old wording is what WP:STONEWALLING is against. That would be true, except that WP:CONSENSUS has not been established. There are many ways to establish consensus, one is WP:BRD. You have been WP:BOLD through WP:BRDB, your edit was reverted by three editors WP:BRDR. The final step of that is discussion WP:BRDD. Per the first bulletpoint in WP:BRDD If your bold edit was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version. If your reversion was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version. Instead, take it to the talk page (see below). If you re-revert, then you are no longer following BRD. WP:BRDD has not yet happened.
            • that medical sources say "assigned female at birth" sometimes is not a reason to use that technical phrase in this specific spot. Citation needed. Where do medical sources say that this is a reason not to use that phrase, in this context?
          • I can see that while writing this up, Newimpartial has raised several other issues with this edit. Please address them all in some manner, as part of proposing why we should change phrasing in this obviously and clearly contentious manner. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • It was at Newimpartial, which is who the comment was originally to before the edit conflict. Sex is a biological trait that affects the whole phenotype. As I said clearly, it is not a mere assignment rather than a material fact. And I did explain my edits. As for "Where do medical sources say that this is a reason not to use that phrase", that isn't what I was saying. You and others keep saying this is a mainstream medical term. Sure, but that is not a reason to use it in that spot in the article. It's a non sequitur. As I said, we can simply combine the sentences. Crossroads -talk- 18:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • I am not saying that it is a mainstream medical term. I am saying that it is a mainstream term tout court, and have previously documented its extensive use in middlebrow, non-specialist journalism. Newimpartial (talk) 18:26, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute I just say WP:NOTFORUM behavior is this discussion. So, I'm just gonna collapse this discussion entirely. I did warn y'all if I see one more NOTFORUM behavior it's collapse time. You try again by starting a new discussion on this article if you like.CycoMa (talk) 17:21, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CycoMa: given the nature of the discussion above re WP:3RR a collapse is not appropriate at this time. I may have accidentally undone that with my last reply. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:26, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sideswipe9th: I might just throw an admin in here to collapse this for me. Because this discussion keeps jumping into NOTFORUM behavior and edit warring.CycoMa (talk) 17:28, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CycoMa, no sensible admin would do that. And if you doit, I will revert you, so just leave it be. But posing this discussion to NPOVN or something for more eyeballs would be a good idea.Newimpartial (talk) 17:30, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't collapse the discussion, I only just got here! Personally, I find the version https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Irreversible_Damage&curid=65922638&diff=1047701828&oldid=1047700171 (the one endorsed by Firefangledfeathers above) better than the current version. The full quote accurately summarizes the book's contents, and gives the author enough rope, which everyone can see without having to click on the distracting note. Tewdar (talk) 17:37, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, Tewdar. That version violates NPOV by effectively referring to Shrier's subjects in wikivoice as "girls", even the ones who are trans men. Not cool, brah. Newimpartial (talk) 17:42, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is an attributed quotation, not in Wikivoice, unless I am mistaken? Tewdar (talk) 17:48, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Exactly! Crossroads -talk- 17:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's almost that simple. I wish it was that simple. It might even be that simple according to the letter of WP:WIKIVOICE, but in practice it just isn't. Here's a quote from that section of the NPOV policy: A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Emphasis mine. A major lack of clarity is created by including Shrier's use of "girls" without context (the context being, based on the article since I haven't read the book, that Shrier refers to people assigned female at birth who are not girls as "girls"). I think we can all agree that's a seriously contested assertion which we should treat as opinion rather than fact, and not present as a direct statement? From the same policy, and converted plural->singular by me.
          • So I understand the arguments made by Tewdar and Crossroads directly above, but I agree with Newimpartial above them that by allowing Shrier's use of "girls" in this context or lack thereof we are effectively referring to Shrier's subjects in wikivoice as "girls" – because the quote, while attributed to Shrier, is building on the strongly POV premise that all these people are in fact girls. Even if it's technically attributed to Shrier and therefore not in wikivoice, the decontextualized use of "girls" directly supports Shrier's argument directly because of the lack of context, so I'd argue that by allowing the lack of context to stand we are violating WP:NPOV. In order to achieve NPOV we need to contextualize the statement, and that's what the status quo version does or at least attempts to do. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 18:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • (edit conflict) The stable version (now restored) was clear that Shrier was writing about AFAB people - including those with transmasculine identities - and referred to them as girls. The Crossroads version obscures this, presents Shrier's view as though it were fact, and does so by splicing quotations from different sources while removing the note about her choice of terms. Surely this is a BOLD enough change that ONUS applies? Newimpartial (talk) 18:17, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • CycoMa, can you please state which version you prefer and why? Crossroads -talk- 17:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Crossroads: I am still on the fence, right now I am on no one's side for this discussion. Please discuss more on why you had an issue with the lead?CycoMa (talk) 17:53, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • We don't sanitize or rephrase the David Starkey article lede, do we? "Slavery was not genocide otherwise there wouldn't be so many damn blacks in Africa or Britain would there?" - oh dear, end of career! 😁 Tewdar (talk) 17:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm afraid I don't see the relevance of this, but perhaps I just haven't read the latest issue of Outrage Culture. Newimpartial (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • So, talking about 'so many damn blacks in Britain' is fine, but referring to trans boys as girls is not? Got it. Tewdar (talk) 18:05, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • If you think anyone reading the Starkey article is going to get a dopamine hit from the insight, yes, wikipedia recognizes that Starkey is right, then you hold rather different expectations of our readers than I do. But Crossroads' edit will precisely tell our readers that "Shrier is writing about girls" - which already concedes half of her (POV) argument. Newimpartial (talk) 18:08, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                Exactly this. All the terms Starkey uses are clear, so attribution is clear and his meaning is precisely conveyed through the quote, so no NPOV issue arises from including it. That's not the case in this dispute for the reason Newimpartial explains here, much more concisely than I did above. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 18:18, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, my edit clearly says that Shrier calls her subjects girls. I have no idea what dopamine has to do with it. I'm pretty sure none of us consider Starkey right. Crossroads -talk- 18:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Easy fix: "Shrier, who refers to trans boys as 'girls' throughout the book, states..." Tewdar (talk) 18:18, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would support something like this. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 18:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would also be OK with something like this as a fix, as it makes clear the distinction between Shrier's opinion in her work which is contentious, and Wikivoice which should be neutral, that was missing on the previous edit. Could we get the entire text here with that edit in mind, so that we can see what it looks like in context with the previous and subsequent sentence if necessary? Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Full version: "Shrier, who refers to trans boys as 'girls' throughout the book, states that during the 2010s, there began a social contagion creating a "sudden, severe spike in transgender identification" among "high-anxiety, depressive (mostly white) girls who, in previous decades, fell prey to anorexia and bulimia or multiple personality disorder" Tewdar (talk) 18:34, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) I have replied to this line of thinking above: The stable version (now restored) was clear that Shrier was writing about AFAB people - including those with transmasculine identities - and referred to them as girls. The Crossroads version obscures this, presents Shrier's view as though it were fact, and does so by splicing quotations from different sources while removing the note about her choice of terms. You can keep the discussion above, if you like, but I want readers to see that this point has been addressed. And if you need to do more research into the role of dopamine in contrarian thinking, that isn't on me. Newimpartial (talk) 18:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


But we see here the fundamental roadblock - some editors are convinced that not using AFAB is "conceding" something to Shrier. E.g., WP:BATTLEGROUND. Crossroads -talk- 18:18, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I would be fine with a statement in Wikivoice in the lede that Shrier refers to trans boys as girls. I just think "AFAB" in this context is the correct and neutral term in English, which is what interested readers will find in Archive 5 as well. But at least we are solving the hash shortage. Newimpartial (talk) 18:24, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The argument I'm making, which I believe is similar to the one Newimpartial is making, is that your proposed version supports Shrier's POV and that we shouldn't do that. It's quite a stretch to characterize a desire to follow WP:NPOV as WP:BATTLEGROUND editing. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 18:26, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While I'd prefer we stick with AFAB, given that it's the correct term to use, I would also be supportive as I've stated above, of something like the fix Tewdar proposes as it makes abundantly clear the distinction between Shrier's opinion which is contentious, and Wikivoice which should be neutral. We appear to be approaching something of a consensus towards this point, so I'd like to suggest again we put the full version here to see what it looks like as a whole. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:32, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New proposed version

  • Full version: "Shrier, who refers to trans boys as 'girls' throughout the book, states that during the 2010s, there began a social contagion creating a "sudden, severe spike in transgender identification" among "high-anxiety, depressive (mostly white) girls who, in previous decades, fell prey to anorexia and bulimia or multiple personality disorder" Tewdar (talk) 18:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is OK. It fits as a drop-in replacement in the lede with the existing citations well, and makes clear the distinction between Shrier's opinion and Wikivoice. I'd still prefer AFAB, but this is an OK middle ground for me. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:48, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is "trans boys" the right term to use here? Does Shrier refer to anyone non-binary as "girls" in the book? Most importantly, what do we have sourcing to support? ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 18:51, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd need to check the book to be sure, which I don't have to hand, but I don't think she mentions non-binary people at all in it. She simply refers to everyone she is writing about as "biological girls". Maybe using something like "Shrier, who refers to trans boys and non-binary children as 'biological girls' throughout the book," would fit better? Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:06, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative suggestion to get around these issues: "Shrier, who refers to natal female children/adolescents as 'girls' throughout the book, states that during the 2010s, there began a social contagion creating a "sudden, severe spike in transgender identification" among "high-anxiety, depressive (mostly white) girls who, in previous decades, fell prey to anorexia and bulimia or multiple personality disorder". Seems like a more neutral phrasing that accurately describes the situation without needing to worry about non-binary, trans or cis distinctions. -Pengortm (talk) 19:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How about just something like "Shrier, who refers to 'biological girls' throughout the book..."? ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 19:10, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be comfortable using 'biological girls' on its own like that, given that that phrasing is used pretty much exclusively by gender critical people, and would not be neutral. Unless you want to add "to refer to trans and non-binary children and adolescents" after the word book, just to make clear again the distinction between Shrier's words and neutral Wikivoice.. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:17, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative: "Shrier, who refers to those AFAB as 'girls'..." Tewdar (talk) 19:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
After reading over the above: How about "Shrier, who refers to those she writes about as "girls"", or similar? (AFAB is right back where we started, and is an unfamiliar acronym to the vast majority.) I also would have been fine with "Shrier, who refers to 'biological girls' throughout the book". One can read the lead as a whole with this plugged in and it's perfectly clear. Crossroads -talk- 19:34, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree completely that AFAB is an unfamiliar term, it's self explanatory what it means and as discussed previously is used by medical professionals and in medical literature. WP:BURDEN would put it on you to substantiate the claim that is is unfamiliar and uncommon. However even if it was an uncommon term, I don't think there is a reason why we cannot link it to the terminology section on Sex assignment which spells out exactly what AFAB and AMAB. We aren't writing for the Simple English Wikipedia space here and directing readers to related reading should be OK. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:47, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was just being in a rush. Naturally I meant we should write "assigned female at birth". Not sure how this puts us "back where we started"... are we trying to avoid saying "assigned female at birth" at all in the lede here? Tewdar (talk) 19:38, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


On a related note. Could we stop interchanging between asterisks and colons when indenting comments please? The Help:Talk Pages entry is pretty clear that you should stick to one over the other, and we keep getting mangled formatting, especially when trying to indent a bullet point list twice or more for the first entry. Thanks Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:51, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Perhaps I should read some of these guides sometime.😁 So, colons, then, from now on? Tewdar (talk) 19:57, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, no worries. Yeah, mixing colons and asterisks causes issues. And asterisks with double line breaks causes issues. Strangely colons are fine with double line breaks between replies. Definitely worth reading the help pages though, just to keep yourself right :) Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:01, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, whaddabout "Shrier, who refers to 'girls' throughout the book irrespective of their gender identity, states..." Tewdar (talk) 20:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I dare say this could be the best one yet. Crossroads -talk- 20:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Newer proposed version

  • Full version: "Shrier, who refers to 'girls' throughout the book irrespective of their gender identity, states that during the 2010s, there began a social contagion creating a "sudden, severe spike in transgender identification" among "high-anxiety, depressive (mostly white) girls who, in previous decades, fell prey to anorexia and bulimia or multiple personality disorder" Tewdar (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't support this version, since it begs the question of who Shrier refers to as girls. The answer, of course, is people AFAB, which means we have made it around the Ferris wheel again. Newimpartial (talk) 20:39, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree. AFAB is the only unambiguous term for the group she’s referring to as ‘girls’ that includes trans men, cisgender women, and other non-binary folks. Politanvm talk 21:03, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I personally have no objection to "Shrier, who refers to those assigned female at birth as 'girls' throughout the book, states that during the 2010s, there began a social contagion creating a "sudden, severe spike in transgender identification" among "high-anxiety, depressive (mostly white) girls who, in previous decades, fell prey to anorexia and bulimia or multiple personality disorder" Tewdar (talk) 21:08, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No question begging occurs in this version, as when the lead as a whole is read with this in it, it is very clear whom she means. Crossroads -talk- 03:11, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:10 BST proposed version

"Shrier, who refers to those assigned female at birth as 'girls' throughout the book, states that during the 2010s, there began a social contagion creating a "sudden, severe spike in transgender identification" among "high-anxiety, depressive (mostly white) girls who, in previous decades, fell prey to anorexia and bulimia or multiple personality disorder" Tewdar (talk) 21:10, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's like the bleddy Potsdam Conference on this site... Tewdar (talk) 21:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! I was going to support this version, but if that would make me Stalin, Churchill, or Truman, I might have to reconsider... I'm joking, of course, and I agree with this proposed version and the reasoning behind it. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 21:24, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the one who has to tell Stalin they're not giving the USSR any gold, so it's the gulag for me. Tewdar (talk) 21:27, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative: "Shrier, who refers to those discerned to be female at birth as 'girls' throughout the book, states..." Tewdar (talk) 22:10, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This seems fine (“assigned”, not “discerned”), but I don’t really see how it’s an improvement on what’s currently written. It basically just pulls note 1 into the text directly and makes the article wordier. Politanvm talk 22:32, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I give up. There can be no compromise between the "AFAB vs natal female" proponents, it seems. Tewdar (talk) 22:39, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I said it seems fine, but what’s the improvement? Keeping the quote more intact? (Edit conflict: Agree with Sideswipe9th below) Politanvm talk 22:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from being, as Politanvm pretty much identical to the current lede minus moving the note into the text, this would be my preferred option. It certainly makes the distinction between Shrier's commentary and Wikivoice unambiguous, and has a link to the relevant article for people unfamiliar with the term. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:46, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Shrier, who refers to those assigned female at birth as 'girls' throughout the book irrespective of their gender identity..." might be better. It's hardly War and Peace, so I don't know how "wordy" it is really. How about just "Shrier states that there was a sudden increase in transgender identification among teenagers assigned female at birth" then, with no quotes at all? Tewdar (talk) 22:52, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All of these seem fine to me. Politanvm talk 22:53, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be against the second of those two quotes. WP:MOSLEAD in a nutshell states The lead should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight. One of the major repeated criticisms of Shrier's book is that she spends the entire book misgendering those she is writing about. That is already reflected in the criticism section, so spelling it out in the lead as in the first quote makes more sense. Having a link to assigned female at birth also addresses any potential inaccessibility due to a lack of familiarity with the term without being inherently biased. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:02, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's the "AUTHOR’S NOTE" at the start of the book, for reference: "I take it for granted that teenagers are not quite adults. For the sake of clarity and honesty, I refer to biologically female teens caught up in this transgender craze as “she” and “her.” Transgender adults are a different matter. I refer to them by the names and pronouns they prefer wherever I can do so without causing confusion." Tewdar (talk) 09:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, whaddabout: "Shrier, who refers to children and teenagers as 'boys' and 'girls' throughout the book irrespective of their gender identities, states...?"
The version above, "Shrier, who refers to those assigned female at birth as 'girls' throughout the book, states..." appears to be factually incorrect. It would have to be "children and teenagers assigned female at birth..." Tewdar (talk) 10:42, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Or has it already been decided that the phrase "assigned female at birth" must be included in the lead? Tewdar (talk) 12:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I should probably point out that terms like "assigned female at birth" are often avoided in a lot of recent, scholarly, peer-reviewed articles in reputable journals, and substituted with "biological(ly) female", especially (but not exclusively) outside of transgender-related fields, including psychiatry, psychology, feminist theory, anthropology, and genetics. Nobody accuses these scholars or journals of being in any way transphobic. Probably because their readers can be reasonably expected not to try and weaponize the term, I expect... Tewdar (talk) 13:32, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I personally don't use the term in my writing because I find it extremely stylistically awkward. But if you have the motivation to make the argument in detail, you're probably going to have to provide actual sources, and not merely assert it as a matter of fact. GMGtalk 14:32, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll wait and see if the phrase "assigned female at birth" has already been determined to be an essential part of the lead before presenting sources. It's kind of irrelevant anyway - I am not suggesting that we use the term "biological females" here. What I am suggesting is that we don't have to use "assigned female at birth". Tewdar (talk) 14:40, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I still think it should be in the lead. She isn’t using “girls” in the standard way when talking about transgender people, and AFAB is the one term I know of to refer to the same group she is, when on the topic of transgender people. Politanvm talk 15:11, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tewdar, how about you read Archive 5 and call us back? Also, I do see "biological(ly) female" weaponized in transphobic/"gender critical" writing in psychiatry, psychology, feminist theory, anthropology, and genetics. But then again, I am situated within the Canadian English language community and know that other speech communities have different sensibilities. Newimpartial (talk) 16:00, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Newimpartial: I have read Archive 5, thank you. Tewdar (talk) 16:05, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Newimpartial: Please show me some weaponized sources from the named fields in the kinds of journals I described.Tewdar (talk) 16:08, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I found the arguments made by the respected administrator participating in the Archive 5 discussion quite compelling, myself.
And while I don't have access to the full version of this article at present (sorry for the ugly link), I do observe that Burt weaponizes "biological male" and "biological female" in some of her work that is not behind a paywall. Feminist legal theory counts as feminist theory, as far as I know. Newimpartial (talk) 16:40, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Newimpartial: Having less than zero interest in the bureaucracy and politics of this place, I'm not sure who you mean (GorillaWarfare?) by "respected administrator". But what I do know is, I read journals all the time, in archaeogenetics, or endocrinology, or medicine, or whatever, where "biological male/female" is ubiquitous, and neutral, and has almost zero possibility of weaponization, either by the authors or readers. Thanks for the link, I'll have a look. Tewdar (talk) 16:50, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Tewdar: if Shrier's book was limited to those fields, then I think that would be a relevant point to make. However given that her book is explicitly about transgender youth, the term AFAB is the correct terminology to use here. In the fields of transgender research and particularly transgender discourse, the term "biological male/female" is often heavily weaponised against transgender people both in an individually targeted manner eg "you are a biological X", and more generally against groups "all trans X are biological Y". And indeed Shrier herself has done this to dismiss trans women as men, for example in her testimony on the US Equality Act from March 2021. As such using "biological male" or "biological female" is significantly problematic given it's very specific use in transgender discourse. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sideswipe9th: Well, I can find quite a few very recent reputable eg medical journal articles that focus on transgender issues that use "biological male/female" (check out ProQuest or Google Scholar). It is true that AM/FAB is more common in this area, but this is not universal even here. And notice that even the jolly old NHS often uses "sex registered at birth" instead of 'assigned , because people are confused by this terminology. Tewdar (talk) 18:23, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Tewdar: actually the NHS use both assigned and registered in different contexts. For transgender health they use "assigned". For cisgender health they use "registered". I've already stated why I believe that "biological male/female" is problematic, not just because of how it is used against trans people, but also because the author of this book has also directly used it against trans people. AFAB is the correct terminology to use here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sideswipe9th: Here's a few from the last five years (DOIs):

10.1371/journal.pone.0233026 10.1089/cap.2020.29184.bjc 10.1016/j.forsciint.2020.110356 10.1038/s41443-020-0291-z 10.1186/s13293-016-0067-9 Tewdar (talk) 18:54, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I am not suggesting we use "biological female" in this article Tewdar (talk) 18:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
re: NHS, different contexts - yes, you are correct. Tewdar (talk) 19:01, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Tewdar: I'm not disputing that the term is sometimes used in medical journals that refer to transgender people. I'm saying that in this context, about a book that misgenders transgender youth, written by an author who has also misgendered trans adults, to use the terminology "biological male" or "biological female" is inherently problematic. This issue was already discussed heavily in Archive 5, as Newimpartial stated by pointing out the comments made by @GorillaWarfare:, I don't think we don't need to rehash that discussion again. However perhaps this is something that needs to be addressed in either MOS:GENDERID or WPGENDERID, or a new MOS entry needs to be created for this, to get some clarity in this area. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:10, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sideswipe9th: Sure, I'm just sort of pointing out that terms like "biological sex", "biological male", and "biological female" are not inherently evil or unscholarly or whatever... Tewdar (talk) 19:16, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but you started that with a claim about who is or is not likely to weaponize the term. A claim that, at the very least, left out some evidence. Newimpartial (talk) 21:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Newimpartial: No, I finished with a claim suggesting one possible reason why these journals don't attract accusations of transphobia, that didn't require any evidence because it was a guess made in passing, which you decided was the most relevant part of what I wrote when, in fact, it was the least relevant part. Tewdar (talk) 21:57, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You don't think my pointing to an article published in one of the fields you were discussing, where the most notable thing about the author is now the accusations of transphobia based on her work, is somehow not relevant to your argument? That's a strange conception of relevance, grasshopper. Newimpartial (talk) 22:05, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In general, "biological male / female" is often used in a wide range of reputable, scholarly journals in a neutral way. I'm sure you can find a fair number of articles, especially in feminist theory, where it is used less neutrally for point scoring. Tewdar (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is used both ways, which is not a point in its favor IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 02:08, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not much improvement version

Shrier, who refers to children and teenagers assigned female at birth as 'girls' irrespective of their gender identity, states that during the 2010s there began a social contagion, creating a sudden increase in transgender identification among "high-anxiety, depressive (mostly white) girls who, in previous decades, fell prey to anorexia and bulimia or multiple personality disorder".? Tewdar (talk) 16:04, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I support this version per the discussion in previous sections above.Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:54, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But... didn't people want to shorten the lede? 🤔 Tewdar (talk) 19:12, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Politanvm is the only one commenting on length that I can see. They said that an earlier version of this was fine, but that they didn't feel it was an improvement over the current version as it just pulls note 1 into the lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sideswipe9th (talk • contribs) 19:24, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That 'note' thing is a terrible solution, IMO Tewdar (talk) 19:26, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All of these options with some form of AFAB would work okay in my view. I’ve just lost the thread of what the goal of this section is, because it was opened to propose removing AFAB altogether. Politanvm talk 19:44, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I tried that, but none of my proposals were deemed acceptable. Personally, I thought that "Shrier, who refers to children and teenagers as 'boys' and 'girls' irrespective of their gender identity, states..." would be a reasonable compromise, but that word seems to be not part of the lexicon of the talk pages of these articles... Tewdar (talk) 19:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. That version doesn’t work well because it doesn’t tell the reader who Shrier means by “girls”, just that she’s ignoring people’s gender identities. And please, we can discuss improvements to articles without accusing good faith editors of a refusal to compromise. Let’s discuss edits, not editors. Politanvm talk 20:13, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if one side say AFAB must be included, and the other say AFAB must be excluded, compromise is, by definition, impossible. This happens rather a lot in these parts, I have noticed... Tewdar (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a bit of a mischaracterisation of the concerns, at least the ones I've been raising. In this specific context the use of "biological male/female" is problematic, because of Shrier's misgendering in her book and use of "biological male" to attack trans women. In other contexts it is fine, where there aren't those concerns, then using that terminology would be appropriate and fine. The use of AFAB in the lead links in with one of the common criticisms of the book, that Shrier misgenders the people she is writing about.
I'd also like to point out that one of the possible re-drafts that had support was the one that mentioned trans boys and non-binary people. However it was pointed out that AFAB is a clearer term to use here, because it was shorter.
This is also why I and others objected to this edit, because it breaches WP:NPOV by putting Shrier's point uncritically in Wikivoice, by not making clear that when she is referring to "girls" she is also referring to trans boys and non-binary people.
In summary, it's not that AFAB must be included, it's just that contextually something like it needs to be included for WP:NPOV, and that that specific term is the must succinct way to address WP:NPOV concerns. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:07, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, let's use the "trans boys" version above, then... I didn't see any real objections to it. Tewdar (talk) 21:17, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The major concerns of the "trans boys" variant is that when you also include the required "and non-binary youth" it is inherently wordier and not much clearer than using AFAB, with a link to the sex assignment article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:44, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, unless you think the note is worth expanding in the lead, this section's version, as the title says, isn't much of an improvement... Tewdar (talk) 21:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think expanding it in the lead is a slight improvement over the current wording, if only because it is very easy to miss or gloss over the inline note, especially on mobile. But I'd like to hear from other editors before saying it should or should not be done. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:55, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let me get this straight: using "biological male" is usually fine, but it's not okay to use in this article because Shrier uses the phrase also? That argument makes no sense. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:54, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Being slightly wordier seems like a good compromise solution to reach a consensus over the contested AFAB phrasing. But as Tewdar suggests, there seems to be big drive among some editors that AFAB wording must remain. -Pengortm (talk) 03:40, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Korny O'Near, that appears to be what some editors are arguing. Thanks to Tewdar for showing that even "biologically female" can be acceptable term; it is not only "AFAB" and such nowadays, though I don't think using it here would be workable. Perhaps a good compromise between those would to be to simply say "of the female sex"? Sex and gender distinction, after all. Or, "Shrier, who refers to children as "girls" based on sex rather than gender identity". Unless one wants to either deny that these kids are of this sex, or admit it but claim that stating such a fact is somehow impermissible, there remains no reason to prefer the unfamiliar-to-most WP:EUPHEMISM "assigned female at birth". Crossroads -talk- 03:58, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The term 'biological(ly) female' even shows up, in wikivoice, in several articles here. Is there some sort of policy that decides, or is it just down to whoever shows up at these wonderful talk page discussions? Tewdar (talk) 07:49, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, basically it's whoever shows up - though, if the discussion becomes intractable, you could always have an RFC. That said, I don't see any major resistance here to "biologically female". Politics aside, the big advantage of that term is its clarity: unlike phrases like "assigned female at birth" or "of the female sex", anyone reading it can be expected to know what it means. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I expect major resistance to any suggestion such as, "Shrier, who refers to biologically female children and teenagers as 'girls' irrespective of their gender identity, states..." Tewdar (talk) 13:42, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see - does anyone object to this? Korny O'Near (talk) 14:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I object to this term, used in this context. In this context it is a transphobic dog whistle, used overwhelmingly by TERF and Gender critical people to attack and delegitimise transgender people both online and offline. Like the term "adult human female" or "adult human male", "biological female" or "biological male" in this context is a form of biological essentialism used to delegitimise trans people. As I linked earlier, Shrier has used this term, in the form of "biological male", in this manner, to delegitimise trans women in submissions to the US Senate in relation to the US Equality Act in March 2021. To use it in this context is a violation of MOS:GENDERID, specifically because it is a variant of WP:GENDERID#Really_a_man. This book is explicitly about transgender youth, and as such MOS:GENDERID and the explainer WP:GENDERID applies. It is also a violation of WP:NPOV because it gives WP:UNDUE weight that trans people are not legitimate. In other contexts this terminology is appropriate, however on transgender articles it is not. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:52, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone else object to the phrase "biologically female" in this article, or is it just this one editor? Korny O'Near (talk) 16:51, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, consensus is not strictly a vote for/against a proposal. It would be more fruitful perhaps if the concerns I raised were addressed? Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:15, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's not a vote, but it would still be good to know if anyone other than you disagrees with this phrasing. That said, I don't think your concerns are valid. You yourself agree that a phrase like "biologically male" is not in itself pejorative. Given that, avoiding its use here just because Shrier has used the term negatively seems petulant rather than encyclopedic. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I haven't been clear in my objection. It's not that the term is inherently pejorative or offensive, it's that it is contextually so, and that it is so in this context. It's not just because Shrier has used it negatively in the recent past, but that in this context, of articles about transgender issues and people that it is a pejorative. I would be making this same objection on any article categorised as transgender, referring to the same policy and explainer, if the term was used this way in Wikivoice. If the term appeared in a quote attributed to a person, per WP:NPOV I would advocate for an explainer as to why those comments are problematic, akin to how we need one in the article lead explaining how Shrier refers to everyone she is writing about as girls, regardless of their gender identity. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:38, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given the article content, and the intended audience, I don't really think "biologically female" is an option here. Tewdar (talk) 17:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like we’re still going in circles, but if it isn’t clear from my comments in this discussion section or archive 5, AFAB is still the less ambiguous and more accurate term for the group Shrier is referring to. Politanvm talk 17:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To add to my thoughts here, I don’t think “biological sex” is much less jargon-ey or more accurate here, since the book is also talking about interventions that could be considered a “sex change” where the people she’s writing about would not meet some definitions of “biological female”. I’m still not following the objection to AFAB, since it is a term that is specifically meant to avoid this ambiguity. Politanvm talk 17:57, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Assigned female at birth" is a term that I think would be unclear to many readers. Who is doing the assigning? Korny O'Near (talk) 18:06, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This has already been discussed above [1][2]. Infact linking to these terms was my first contribution to this discussion. I'm not sure we need to repeat the full discussion again. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think "assigned" implies a certain amount of possible error or arbitrarity, or at least, doesn't make clear that the assignment requires some sort of judgement, which is not what the term is supposed to mean. There are probably hundreds of better words but, unfortunately, we are probably stuck with "assigned". The WP article on sex assignment uses "discern[ed]" almost immediately, which would probably be a better choice. Almost any word unambiguously implying a decision based on some set of arbitrary criteria would be better, in my opinion. Tewdar (talk) 18:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if we have to resolve ourselves to being stuck with "assigned" - as you note, it's unclear, and it could probably be classified as WP:JARGON. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd refer back to the complete discussion in this full heading not just the latest subheading, as well as the discussion in archive 5 that I believe Newimpartial linked previously as to why assigned is not WP:JARGON, and is in fact the correct terminology to use. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Biological sex is also unclear and jargon in the context of this article (chromosomes, hormones, genitalia?), so why not use the technical term that means what we need it to and link to the article that explains what sex assignment means? AFAB is the least unclear term here. It’s the only term that refers to exactly the group Shrier means and nobody else. At some point, refusing to click a link that explains a term that is a core part of this subject area is choosing to be uninformed and confused. Politanvm talk 19:42, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is kinda arbitrary though. Sex is typically assigned at birth via genital inspection either at the time of birth or via ultrasound after the 12th week of pregnancy. For intersex people where genital inspection is unclear, genetic testing is done. In transgender people, because of the somewhat arbitrary use of external genitalia to assign sex in the lack of any definitive test that could determine whether or not that assignment will match their gender identity, this results in errors. Transgender people make up anywhere between 1 and 7% of the population, which can be a fairly high error rate. As for a potential confusion on behalf of a future reader of the article, an inline link to the terminology section of the sex assignment article solves that as it contains the definitions for both AFAB and AMAB. As several editors have pointed out here and in archive 5, in transgender discourse AFAB and AMAB are the correct and most common terms to use.
On a related point, we probably should advocate for some sort of clarity in this in WP:GENDERID or MOS:GENDERID because this sort of discussion will be happening on other articles. A huge amount of this discussion could have been avoided if we could point to the guidance which says what is or is not the correct terminology to use here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:38, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not aware of any WP:MEDRS which asserts that sex assignment in someone who later comes out as transgender is an "error". Sex and gender are distinct. As for MOS, instruction creep has historically been shot down there. Any such situation is unique and a universal rule creates more problems than it solves. Sources vary in each situation too. Crossroads -talk- 21:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's only an "error" if what they are trying to determine at birth is "gender identity", not if it is biological sex. Is there any reliable source that says it is the former rather than the latter? *Dan T.* (talk) 22:54, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shrier, who conflates 'girls' with transgender and non-binary individuals irrespective of their gender identity, states..."? Tewdar (talk) 17:30, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That makes it sounds like she calls every transgender person a girl. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and we also have to be careful what is said because Shrier does refer to adult trans people with pronouns and words like 'man' or 'woman' based on their gender identity. It isn't across the board misgendering. Crossroads -talk- 21:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no one has come up with a reason to be against the proposal I made before to simply say "of the female sex". Sex and gender distinction, after all. Or, "Shrier, who refers to children as "girls" based on sex rather than gender identity". Unless one wants to either deny that these kids are of this sex, or admit it but claim that stating such a fact is somehow impermissible, there remains no reason to prefer the unfamiliar-to-most WP:EUPHEMISM "assigned female at birth". Crossroads -talk- 21:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the first time that AFAB/AMAB has been said to be an unfamiliar or unfamiliar-to-most WP:EUPHEMISM. I've provided links previously that show it's common terminology in use by the CDC and NHS, and others have made similar remarks. However no proof has been forthcoming so far that it is unfamiliar. So could that claim be cited please? Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:12, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That seems akin to proving a negative. Medical providers and agencies use all sorts of technical terms. And while they may use this term in articles focused on trans topics for a presumably largely-trans audience, we do have to write for everyone on Wikipedia. As I said above, its use of "assigned" there is very odd, and newborns are not being discussed. Crossroads -talk- 23:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Saying it’s odd doesn’t make it odd. It’s a standard term when talking about transgender people. This is an article focused on a trans topic, and hiding a standard term from Wikipedia readers does them no service, especially when we have an article about sex assignment for those who have not seen the term before. Sex assignment is a fundamental term to know to understand this book. To your question about the issue with using “female sex”, I explained my thoughts in my most recent reply. Politanvm talk 01:15, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, Shrier, who refers to children and teenagers of female sex as 'girls' irrespective of their gender identity, states...? Tewdar (talk) 21:35, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes. Since a minor teenager is still a child, and that is who she discusses, we could even drop "and teenagers". Crossroads -talk- 23:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • This seems fine to me too, with or without "and teenagers". Korny O'Near (talk) 01:52, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Going out of our way to emphasize the female sex of young trans men and nonbinary people is not NPOV language and not compliant with MOS:GENDERID. None of you should really be proposing that dubious improvement. Newimpartial (talk) 02:11, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anybody who uses biased terms like "TERF" and "transphobic dog whistle" has absolutely no business judging what constitutes NPOV on this subject. *Dan T.* (talk) 23:03, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Says the editor who wrote The terminology "Assigned Female/Male At Birth" embeds the ideology this book is criticizing in the article about it above, insisting without evidence that the terms are ideological and refusing to read the extensive RS literature defining and using the terms. Pot::Kettle.
    • Also, there is absolutely wrong with referring to a term as a transphobic dog whistle. If an editor can't tell the difference between a discussion of how terminology is used and casting ASPERSIONS on the motives of other editors, well, competence is required, especially in a discretionary sanctions area. Newimpartial (talk) 02:15, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Terminology | Adolescent and School Health". Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). December 18, 2019. Archived from the original on May 7, 2020. Retrieved May 23, 2020.
  2. ^ "Inclusive Language". NHS Digital service manual. Retrieved 2 October 2021.

SBM Editor Emeritus letter

Meanwhile, amidst all the fury and edit warring about "assigned [whatever] at birth", editors are also rejecting attempts to insert mention of a founding editor of Science-Based Medicine coming out against the current editors on the issue of reviews of this book. Apparently Substack (where much journalism happens these days) is not a valid source, though it happens to be where the letter in question was published. Here's the passage in question:

An editor emeritus of Science-Based Medicine, Kimball Atwood, defended the original review and criticized the later articles.[1]

*Dan T.* (talk) 18:11, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "An Emeritus Editor At Science-Based Medicine Just Sent This Letter To Steven Novella Criticizing The Site's Recent Turn Away From Rigorous Science". jessesingal.substack.com. 2021-09-25. Retrieved 2021-10-01.
I'm not sure there is a consensus yet on whether Substack as a platform is WP:RS, or if only individual Substacks are reliable because in addition to the named writer, they also have editorial staff and editorial guidelines. This is an important distinction to make because The Dispatch is a reliable source, that publishes on Substack, because it has both editorial guidelines and editorial staff in addition to article authors. Having taken a brief look at Jessee's substack however, I cannot find mention of an editorial team or guidelines that he follows. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, this particular substack is an SPS and does not meet WP:RSOPINION requirements. Newimpartial (talk) 18:28, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If we were using the blog/substack as a source for particular factual contentions than I think we would have to more carefully consider the reliable source issues. However, the claim being made in the above is reasonable to source to this. I think this clearly should be included and that there's no real source issue here.-Pengortm (talk) 19:05, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. This self-published source is being used for particular factual contentions about a living third party, Kimball Atwood. WP:SPS is unambiguous here: we can't do that. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 19:13, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Irreversible_Damage&diff=prev&oldid=1048261617&diffmode=source

Leave a Reply