This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Gender studies C‑class Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : see Unassessed Gender studies articles and Unknown-importance Gender studies articles Cleanup : edit to see Collaborate : see /Collaboration Copyedit : edit to see Deletion sorting : see /Sexuality and gender Expand : edit to see Infobox : see Gender studies articles needing infoboxes Merge : edit to see Notability : edit to see NPOV : edit to see Orphans : Brannon Masculinity Scale · Domestic violence in lesbian relationships · Holy Virility · Media and gender · Michael Kaufman (author) · Women's education in Saudi Arabia Photo : see Wikipedia requested photographs of gender studies Split : History of feminism Stubs : see Gender studies stubs Translate : see /translation Update : edit to see Verify : Riot grrrl Needs attention : see Gender studies articles needing attention LGBT studies C‑class This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Medicine C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A paper was published in The Journal of Pediatrics yesterday, testing the hypothesis of ROGD. Quotation from the discussion section We did not find support within a clinical population for a new etiologic phenomenon of “ROGD” during adolescence. Among adolescents under age 16 seen in specialized gender clinics, associations between more recent gender knowledge and factors hypothesized to be involved in ROGD were either not statistically significant, or were in the opposite direction to what would be hypothesized. I'm still getting to grips with all of the nuances of WP:MEDRS however I think this is citable in the article, at the very least within the academic reactions section, though I'm not entirely sure how to phrase/word that. Thoughts? Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first actual piece of clinical science on the subject looking at patients and not based on polls given to parents. This study should really be given prominence somewhere in the article and then other clinical research that comes out in the future can be added to the section made for that. Silverseren^C 03:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, absolutely include, this is a very strong source. Loki (talk) 04:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding MEDRS, while neither this nor Littman's article would be used at an article like gender dysphoria, where there are plenty of reviews to use instead, we can summarize and cite this here. WP:MEDDATE notes that the rules may need to be relaxed in areas where few reviews are published, and the ROGD controversy certainly falls under that category. Crossroads ^-talk- 07:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah cool! I wasn't sure if MEDDATE could be used in that way. I'm glad that this paper gives some needed clinical oversight of the theory and can be added. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've added it. Further amends and discussion welcome. (And I wouldn't worry too much about MEDRS, if we always followed it to the letter then this article wouldn't exist at all.) The Land (talk) 18:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! I'm still getting to grips with the somewhat stricter sourcing requirements for medical articles, and the caveats like MEDDATE that allow for flexibility in circumstances like this. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that basically, we are not treating ROGD as a medical phenomenon. According to the MDRS rules, we'd have to follow the lead of some national or international medical body to do so, and to quote mainly review articles that themselves synthesise high-quality clinical evidence. With ROGD there is one national medical body that says ROGD is *not* a thing, no review articles at all, and only one clinical study which also says that ROGD is *not* a thing. MEDRS is not really well suited to situations where the only available evidence on an article's subject says that the alleged condition does not exist at all. The Land (talk) 09:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It honestly feels like FRINGE would apply more than MEDRS here, since it's basically a pseudoscience claim with no actual scientific backing. Silverseren^C 10:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a discussion of what three websites were surveyed, because it's clearly relevant to the study's alleged findings to clearly and unambiguously disclose what the websites were - three nonprofessional sites which, according to other sources, were primarily populated by people hostile toward transgender rights, who actively rejected their child's trans identity, and who actively believed ROGD was a thing. This strikes to the heart of the study's credibility, because it then amounts to asking a bunch of people who have already made up their mind about something, what they've made up their mind about. As a social scientist, I'm appalled that any researcher would purport that such a methodology would produce anything remotely resembling valid results which can be extrapolated across broader populations. This is stuff you learn in basic grad-level research methods courses. The study has a purposive sample, which can only tell you about the experiences and beliefs found among that specific subpopulation of parents who chose to participate in trans-hostile websites - it's completely useless to tell us how the children themselves felt or what they experienced. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:47, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you, but I'll just note for the record and for what it's worth that her response to this point is to say that her methods were consistent with those used without controversy in other studies. [1] Not saying that justifies the method or is necessarily an apt comparison, but it is what it is. Crossroads ^-talk- 08:58, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've read it, and it's bullshit - the "comparable" studies she cited generally included sampling from at least one large, generalized platform such as Reddit, Yahoo, Twitter, and Facebook, which are apt to have much more diverse user bases than three VERY obscure ideologically-targeted "gender-critical" blogs. That she chose only those three blogs and nowhere else is... revealing. The fact that 88% of her respondents were women and two-thirds were in a single 15-year age range - 46-60 - is similarly suggestive of a bizarrely-flawed (to put it charitably) sample. If that had been my sample for my master's thesis, I'm fairly certain my adviser would have told me to redesign my entire study. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:29, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[2]

Wait, these may not have been their children!?

But seriously, it does read oddly, and "parents' accounts of" already attributes the narrative to the parents. It's already saying it's an account. Why not add a "seemingly" in there too for good measure? That would be excessive, of course. So is this. Crossroads ^-talk- 09:08, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not great writing, but it seems obvious to me that the intended meaning is that "perceived as" refers to "suddenly manifesting", which is a perfectly accurate and relevant point to emphasize the parents' subjectivity about. Does anyone have a better way to say this? Newimpartial (talk) 09:47, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it is awkward, but what Newimpartial said - we need to make clear that what she was measuring in the survey is the parents' subjective perception of their child's gender identity "suddenly manifesting"; because she did not talk to any actual children going through this purported "ROGD," the study has no way of determining whether this parental perception was accurate, or whether the child had actually been exploring their gender identity for a period of time without their parents noticing, and thus the only thing "sudden" about it is how the parents experienced that revelation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:07, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How about "what they perceived as a sudden manifestation in their teenage children of symptoms of gender dysphoria and self-identification as transgender simultaneously with other children in their peer group." Firefangledfeathers 19:24, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's better. :) Newimpartial (talk) 19:25, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect! NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:37, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's much better. The fact that the "sudden manifestation" is an opinion of the parents and not some fact of reality is a primary point of the ROGD study in question and academic criticism of it. Silverseren^C 05:58, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Crossroads:, the change was already discussed and approved of here. Your alteration is not equivalent. "A seemingly sudden manifestation" still implies that this happened in reality, rather than being entirely within the heads of the parents in question. Silverseren^C 06:28, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A decision here doesn't mean it can't be further improved. Nobody doubts that these youths manifested symptoms of gender dysphoria and identified as transgender. So it isn't "entirely" within the heads of the parents. The doubt has to do with the timing, the "suddenness" of this, with critics saying they may have had these symptoms and/or identity well before revealing them. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:38, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's still not quite there yet. The problem currently (as of 06:24, 18 Dec) is that Littman's term doesn't describe the parents' accounts (the accounts might be described as shocked, or bathetic, or resigned, or angry, but not as ROGD); rather, the term describes the purported syndrome described by the parents' accounts. I understand what the 3rd sentence of the LEAD is going for, and so does everybody here, and I'm not minimizing the effort it took to get this far. But, if you consider someone reading this who never heard of ROGD, maybe never heard of dysphoria, possibly with only vague notions of trans-anything, this sentence is not clear enough. It's possible the third sentence is trying to do too much work, and maybe it needs to be broken up into two or three; perhaps 3a): "Littman surveyed parents hanging out at some forums about transkids issues, and collected reports from the parents about their children reporting/coming out/stating/manifesting their transness/dysphoria;" and 3b): "The parents reported that these changes in their children occurred suddenly, and Littman named this apparent sudden change in their children as observed and reported by the parents as ROGD." Purposely left unrefined, just to get the main idea out there. Mathglot (talk) 09:16, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The key word, though, is sudden. As long as that word is used, we have to attribute the apparent change to the parent's perceptions and opinions, since Littman and all reputable sources afterwards do so. Implying that there is any evidence beyond that that the changes were sudden is a misuse of the sources. Either way I think the reworded version captures it better. --Aquillion (talk) 19:42, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• There appears to be at least a rough 5-1 consensus here for the new wording, or 5-2 if we count tweaks to it as objections? There is always room to workshop or refine it but unless I'm missing something I'm not seeing the lack of consensus described in this edit. Obviously quick nose-counts are fallible and not the be-all-and-end-all, but I found that edit summary a bit baffling. --Aquillion (talk) 23:51, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In that edit I was reverting wording that was not discussed here at all. My "status quo" described includes the "what they perceived as" that people wanted above. I don't know what else you're counting in that "5", but if counts anything besides the "what they perceived as", it must mash together many different things. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:57, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Aquillion regards consensus and prefer SreySros improved wording over my attempt. Reading this thread the seemed a preference to break up the passage and regards the wording it is based on wording in the body .... "dedicated to opposing gender-affirmative care for trans youth", and "dedicated to opposing what they call "trans ideology" and known online venues for parents who reject their children's transgender identities and for specifically voicing out and promoting the concept of ROGD .... i dont think it can be described as WP:OR. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 00:17, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what anyone is counting as anything (though I am aware from experience that one editor plus Crossroads = consensus, at least according to that editor's rule of thumb). But I support adding a characterization of the websites from recruitment took place in the lede, as I regard the recruitment bias as in some ways a more fundamental issue with the Littman paper than the reliance on parents' self report (and many people more qualified than I have made this point in RS). Newimpartial (talk) 00:18, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, your argument is explicitly to include this because it helps disprove the paper. Doesn't sound very NPOV.

As for "dedicated to opposing gender-affirmative care for trans youth", sources as a whole don't support this. We can't cherrypick the WP:BIASEDSOURCE Florence Ashley when Science described them as "gathering places for parents concerned by their children's exploration of a transgender identity". Also, "trans youth" presupposes that all the kids in question are in fact trans rather than some exploring it but not actually being trans. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how experienced you are with NPOV, but the point of that concept is to describe things according to the BALANCE of the sourced descriptions and without taking sides. The fact, reported in multiple sources, that Littman recruited her participants from sites that actively encouraged skepticism towards their children's gender identity declarations is an important fact to know about her work even before discussing the criticism of her work by others. This isn't a matter of it helps disprove the paper, it is just a salient, sourced, fact about its origins. Newimpartial (talk) 12:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another source that may be relevant, which notes that The sites where Littman advertised the study are critical of gender affirmative care for trans youth and promote skepticism regarding young people’s trans identities. We are already citing it once in the article, but only briefly and lumped in with other sources; it's also a decent source on the sites Littman used, since as far as I can tell it's (at a glance) one of the higher-quality ones discussing it. At the very least I don't think it would make sense to omit this omission in the original paper, since the issues that have been raised with the sites selected and the risk that it could invalidate the paper's results were specifically acknowledged in the correction, ie. it is a central part of the dispute even in Littman's account. Obviously she argues that it does not invalidate her results, but the fact that she acknowledged that it was a potential issue, and that her failure to name the sites in the original paper and to discuss this potential issue was an error requiring a correction, indicates that it is a central part of the dispute even before we look at secondary coverage. --Aquillion (talk) 20:28, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh nice, that's a useful source. I think we should cite that, along with the Wadman and Ashley sources to have a unified description of the sites both in the lead section and in the body (not necessarily the exact same description, we should probably go into more detail in the body) – something a bit cleaner than the clumsy A described the first two as "X", and the third as "Y". B described the first as "Z", and the latter two as "W" construction that we have now.

I don't know why anyone would read the quotes we have describing Littman's websites as contradicting each other. As far as I can tell, all the RSs we have (let me know if I've missed any) say that the websites are:

1. Populated by parents who already believed in ROGD as an explanation for their trans children's identities (Restar)
2. Gathering places for parents concerned by their children's trans identity (Wadman)
3. Dedicated to opposing gender-affirmative care for trans youth and "trans ideology" (Ashley)
4. Well-known for telling parents not to believe their child is transgender (Restar) and to be skeptical of their trans children's identities (Pitts-Taylor)

None of these sources contradict each other. Restar and Pitts-Taylor agree with each other almost exactly. Ashley remarks on the broad purpose of the sites rather than their specific behavior or populations, and her description is consistent with the others. Wadman is less specific than her counterparts, but that's to be expected given that it's a news article, not a peer-reviewed scientific paper like the others are. Further, her description is entirely consistent with the other sources. Even if we were to read her quote as these sites are gathering places for parents concerned by their children's trans identity [and are in other aspects completely unremarkable] (which, by the way, we absolutely shouldn't), this would be a minority viewpoint among the sourcing we have. Srey Sros^talk 06:22, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The study itself states that Website moderators and potential participants were encouraged to share the recruitment information and link to the survey with any individuals or communities that they thought might include eligible participants to expand the reach of the project through snowball sampling techniques. "Eligible participants" being defined earlier as someone with a parental response that their child had a sudden or rapid onset of gender dysphoria. This means that the study explicitly targeted people who a priori believed ROGD is a real thing, and that even if it was linked somewhere other than the three listed sites, there wouldn't be a meaningful difference in the sample because the author only wanted responses from people who think their child is experiencing ROGD. Any first-year social sciences grad student can recognize where this is going: this is a purposive sample, and the data you're going to get from a purposive sample is only valid to understand the population you sampled. So what we have is a study of what parents who believe in ROGD think about ROGD. Utterly and completely invalid for any other purpose, including to claim that ROGD even exists. And that's why all the major mental health and sexuality organizations rejected it offhand.

Think about it this way: if you go exclusively to three websites: dailyKos, Democratic Underground, and Talking Points Memo to get your convenience sample and then ask people on those sites to "share the recruitment information" for your study, do you think you will get very many, if any, responses from Donald Trump supporters? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:09, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a quote from the Science article, because knowing what we now know about the study, I believe it is misleading and lacking in context. The quote makes a statement about the study's findings about the peer groups of trans children being "explosive," without explaining that the finding is based solely on parental reports from parents who believe their child is experiencing ROGD - the vast majority of whom openly reject their child's gender identity - not from the children themselves.

Relying on parents who a priori reject their child's gender identity to tell us anything meaningful or substantially true about their child's peer group of friends strikes me, as a trained qualitative social scientist, as extraordinarily dubious. The study subjects openly and explicitly deny their child's identity - why are we supposing that they have any significant knowledge of what their child's peer group actually is? Would a young adult who knows their parents reject their identity be likely to openly and truthfully share with their parents about their peers? Why is a purported study of young adult behavior attempting to divine all of its data from a small, targeted group of parents who openly and explicitly deny their child's feelings? Why was there no attempt to gather data from the young people themselves? This is extraordinarily dubious social science, and it's not surprising that other studies have failed to find any support for its existence.

Thus, I don't think that quote belongs, not at least without the context of what the study was actually measuring. The study reports what a purposive sample of anti-trans parents believe about their trans child's peer group - which may or may not have any resemblance whatsoever to what the peer group actually is. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My objection to the paragraph, which I also removed, applies in addition to the version of the previous paragraph that Pengortm reinstated. In both paragraphs, the article text had followed journalistic sources and left the impression that Littman engaged in some form of triangulation in identifying characteristics of the children and their peer groups. As the reliable, secondary sources have emphasized Littman's reliance on parental-report measures, there is no justification for borrowing less accurate language from the journalists - just because Science published misleading language does not oblige us to repeat it here. Newimpartial (talk) 16:57, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noting here that both Mathglot and Pengortm had restored it, but despite it being 2 on each side, it was reverted out again anyway. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:28, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding this article and talk page. The thread is Rapid-onset_gender_dysphoria_controversy. Thank you.

Sticking a notification here as multiple editors may wish to contribute there. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:08, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with the summary of his comments? The prior quote was 3 extended sentences long, which is a pretty large quote to include. Silverseren^C 04:12, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even the rewritten version seems WP:UNDUE; Quillette is a low-quality source which publishes opinions fairly indiscriminately as long as they agree with their perspective, so publication there doesn't carry much weight. It doesn't make sense to devote an entire paragraph to Flier's opinion in a low-quality source like that (especially given that Flier's expertise is unrelated to gender or sexuality) when we're devoting much less space to peer-reviewed studies. I think it's fair to say that ^[1][2][3] should each individually be given more text than we devote to Flier, or at least clearly not less - currently we lump them all together into a single sentence shorter than any of the multiple sentences given to Flier individually! Either they need to be expanded, or Flier should be lumped into the second sentence that presents the other view and not given individual focus; the same applies to Lee Jussim, who also has no expertise relevant to sexuality and yet also inexplicably gets a paragraph to himself. Personally I prefer the latter - lumping together multiple similar opinions into a broad summary that covers all of them avoids the risk of "zinger" quotes getting dropped into the article in a way that makes it NPOV. But it is especially a POV issue to have multiple such zingers from one side and the opposing side of a controversy condensed into a brief "some people disagree", so we either need to expand those three until they each individually get at least as much text as Flier and Jussim, or we need to condense Flier and Jussim together into the existing single sentence with others who hold views similar to them in the same way. Look at the current structure of the section - the middle paragraph carefully balances viewpoints and condenses multiple views from experts in high-quality relevant journals into a few sentences to do so; then the entire first paragraph and third paragraphs are devoted to individual views from people with weaker expertise publishing in less-relevant sources (with most of the first paragraph being cited to an unreliable axe-grindy culture-war source!) --Aquillion (talk) 09:42, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What Aquillion says here sounds reasonable to me. I'm not a big fan of "zinger" quotes. XOR'easter (talk) 17:36, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that condensing to preserve a neutral POV is encyclopedically preferable to expansion. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 19:17, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with Aquillion it is definitely wrong, WP:UNDUE and against WP:NPOV to give comparatively more space to commentators who have very little or no expertise in the subject (and who are writing in lower quality sources) than to peer-reviewed studies by qualified specialists whose work is published in sources that relate to the subject. To even give them equal space & weight would be a false balance. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 20:31, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're absolutely right. Upon reflection, even the version I wrote gives far too much weight to Flier and Jussim relative to the higher-quality sources we have. I agree that condensing the first and third paragraph into a sentence or two would even out the due issues with the current version, although the section as a whole isn't that long as-is so we could expand our coverage of the Ashley, Kennedy, and Pitts-Taylor sources and flesh out the section a bit (and perhaps condense Flier/Jussim a bit less in that case). If nobody else does I'll likely have time to take a crack at rebalancing the section this evening. Srey Sros^talk 21:55, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer less (or no) cutting of the Flier and Jussim articles and expansion of the other three. Better to be comprehensive. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I made an edit^[3] attempting to implement the consensus here and reduce the weight placed on Flier and Jussim, but my edits were reverted^{[4] [5]} by Pengortm. Is my understanding of the consensus here incorrect? It seems we have six editors here on Talk in support of reduced weight on these sources, and the current state of the article does not seem to reflect that. Srey Sros^talk 00:08, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The degree of reduction was not specified, and ideally there should be compromise with the editors who thought that reduction was excessive. It is fine to reduce it, but not at the expense of removing major points. Expand the text sourced to other articles with opposing POVs by a similar amount instead if you wish. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are once again edit-warring against the consensus of multiple other editors. No one stated that the text should be expanded. Silverseren^C 20:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retract your false accusation. All those editors were commenting on the much longer version as seen here. I did not "expand" the text from that. SreySros' harsh reduction isn't privileged just by being the first attempt. Rather, compromise is expected when reaching WP:Consensus. It seems Pengortm agrees with me that version was too short. Removing major points is POV. My version was a reduction from what all those people were commenting on as it existed at the time. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:49, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You literally just above in your comment argued for expanding the other text after you reverted reduction of the quote as is the consensus in this discussion. Summarizing over-long quotes is not POV. Silverseren^C 21:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Silver seren: it didn’t look like edit warring to me.CycoMa1 (talk) 20:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Making the same reversion after Pengortm reverted and was changed again with a edit summary noting the consensus on the talk page. That is tag-team edit warring yes. Especially when one party isn't engaging on the talk page, but just keep coming in to revert any time a consensus change is enacted. Silverseren^C 21:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone is tag team edit warring it is you, reverting any version other than the most reduced version. I did not revert the reduction as a whole as you imply. Again, SreySros' initial harsh reduction is not the only way of reducing it, and making an edit to try to compromise is fine. And my version differed from Pengortm's as it was shorter. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have a slight issue with the source in the Further research section.

Although the source is indeed reliable the source is actually a classified as a case reports on pubmed. Making it fall into that category of primary source. And primary sources aren’t really ideal for Wikipedia especially regarding topics like this.

So I think we should keep the study in the further research section but remove its mention from the lead.CycoMa1 (talk) 20:41, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a scientific topic in the first place, but one that falls under WP:FRINGE. If it was a science article, literally the article subject study would fail MEDRS. And the case report is the only actual academic material published on this subject. It is the only actual science to report on, hence why it should be and is in the lede. Silverseren^C 21:07, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All Wikipedia articles are to be based on the highest-quality sources available, per policy, and that includes determining what is due for the lead section as well as the body. Since the study in question is one of the highest-quality sources available, it is DUE for mention in both body and lead. Newimpartial (talk) 23:08, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The group underlying the website 4th Wave Now cannot be described as anti-trans, in my opinion. If I had to briefly describe their views, I'd say they they advise a go-slow approach with minor children, and are opposed to what they see as an overeager medical/psychological rush to diagnose minor children as trans and then treat them medically and psychologically. Unlike true anti-trans groups whose views are strictly based on advocacy and not on any actual medical or psychological basis, 4th Wave's opinions and explanations are science-based, and within the bounds of normal debate on a young and still evolving field.

Here are some of their positions, from their FAQ:

• "We oppose any form of therapy that seeks to change a child’s sexual orientation. And we oppose any form of therapy that pushes a child to conform to sex role stereotypes."

In the next breath, they go on to explain why they are nevertheless opposed to some legislation seeking to ban conversion therapy, because it "often conflates sexual orientation and gender identity as a single issue". The extended explanation that follows shows a nuanced understanding of the issues involved, and they come down much more on a "wait-and-see" attitude regarding transition, than some groups who are more willing to treat minor children medically and surgically. Here are some additional points, in Q&A format (brief excerpts):

• "Do you oppose providing medical transition even to individuals over the age of 18?"

  A "In our society, individuals who are 18 years or older have the legal right to medically transition if they so choose. We do not seek to change this. We believe that adults should have autonomy over their lives."

• "Does 4thWaveNow partner with conservative organizations?"
  • A: "No."
• "Are parents who... allow their children to medically transition... bad parents?"
  • A: "No."
• "Is it your belief that all transgender people should return to living as their natal sex?"
  • A: "No."

Their main objective appears to be promoting the go-slow approach with respect to transitioning of minor children. From their self-described "mission":

• "The mission of 4thWaveNow is to provide a forum for an alternative understanding of how to support children and young people who desire to transition. We believe the medical and psychological establishments are making a grave mistake by rushing to diagnose young people as transgender and then to promote their medical transition."

This is a defensible position medically that not everyone would agree with, but clearly plenty of medical professionals do. (Plenty disagree, too, and I'm not quantifying the disagreement, but it's not entirely lopsided in either direction.) You could say that 4th Wave are "conservative" with respect to minor children transitioning, especially when this is compared with some who are prepared to go forward with surgical youth transition, but I believe the latter are a minority among health professionals.

In my opinion, this group cannot be described as a "anti-trans". But in the end, my opinion about whether they can, or cannot be described as "anti-trans" is worthless; we need to see what the reliable sources say about it. Boston Review describes them as "self-described left-leaning liberals" in their article Science Won’t Settle Trans Rights. As far as labeling, they could perhaps be described as "conservative" with respect to the parents and health care teams of Jazz Jennings or Kim Petras, but would no doubt be described as far-left (if not worse) by any actual anti-trans groups (such as ACPeds).

Clearly the Littman issue is what brought 4th Wave Now to whatever prominence they now have outside their own circle, and the gross methodological failures of the Littman study probably shone [what we might judge as] a negative light upon them from the outset. (I have to admit, I pigeon-holed them as hateful, trans-hating neanderthals at first.) However, with additional scrutiny, I changed my opinion after delving a bit further. At the moment, there is not a great deal of independent material about them that I can find, and until there is, we should not apply a label to this group which is not justified by the same criteria of WP:Verifiability that we would apply to any other group. In an ironic mirror of 4th Wave Now's view of medical transition of minor children as a rush to judgment, there has been, in my opinion, a rush to judgment among editors of this article regarding 4th Wave Now (I don't exclude myself from that).

For the moment, until there is reliable evidence to the contrary, we should rely on WP:SELFSOURCE, and what little is out there now. Labeling someone or something as "anti-trans" requires evidence (some might say "extraordinary evidence"); and when there are as many clear and unambiguous statements about 4th Wave Now being "anti-trans" as there are, say, for ACPeds, then I will be in favor of labeling them as such. But there are not now, and in my opinion, until there are, we are violating WP:V by making that claim in WP:WikiVoice with nothing to back it up other than the opinions of Wikipedia editors. To the extent that their spokespersons and authors of their mission statement are alive, this may also be a violation of WP:BLP. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:17, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We literally just concluded an RfC up above on this. Are you trying to relitigate it again? Silverseren^C 23:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And, as noted in the RfC, we do have sources that describe 4th Wave Now (and the other sites) as anti-trans. Examples:

"Responding to the BBC coverage, ‘4thWaveNow’, another well-known anti-trans group, said" - Source

"But the term rapid onset gender dysphoria (ROGD) first came into mention by academic Lisa Littman on gender-critical blog 4thWaveNow in 2016...Dr Littman’s participants in the study were recruited from three blogs; 4thWave Now, Transgender Trend, and Youth Trans Critical Professionals, all known to have an anti-transgender bias" - Source

So, again, what's wrong with how the RfC concluded? Silverseren^C 23:26, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm divided between you and Silverseren's sources. I appreciate you bringing this up again, Mathglot. RfCs aren't final and you've provided strong evidence that the anti-trans label is too harsh on 4th wave. However, I'll wait and see what other sources come up in the discussion. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is the strong evidence? A group can self-describe however they want, but that doesn't make that self-description accurate. Silverseren^C 23:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × 2) I guess I missed the Rfc. I'm not "trying" to do anything. I'm pointing out an assertion currently in the article that does not meet Wikipedia's requirements for WP:Verifiability. If that means another Rfc is needed, then so be it; but I'm pretty busy in other areas right now, and I won't be the one to start it. If someone wants to start one, I'll participate if pinged, but otherwise I probably won't. I haven't read the Rfc, but if it was about 4th Wave Now and labeled it anti-trans, then that is unjustifiable, in my opinion, based on my understanding of the requirements of verifiability policy, and the lack of support for that in reliable, independent secondary, published sources.

I got an ec: re Pinknews, see RSN. Re iNews: never heard of them, but not yet covered in RSN, so I guess nobody else has, either. Is this *really* supported by independent sources? How about, Reuters, BBC, The Guardian, NY Times, The Times, The Economist, Financial Times, WSJ, Christian Science Monitor, Bloomberg?

And another ec; sorry can't respond to that right now. Mathglot (talk) 23:44, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, you didn't read the RfC that is still on this talk page above. But are single-handedly claiming everyone involved in the RfC is wrong? Silverseren^C 23:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mathglot's is the most adroit announcement of a one-against-many "muh readin of polici" crusade I've seen recently - but we must all have our bad days, I suppose. Newimpartial (talk) 00:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]