Talk:Libs of TikTok

Sources #17 and #18 report that libsoftiktok made a false claim about the Center for Gender Surgery at Boston Children's Hospital. The tweet in question is:

“Boston Children’s Hospital is now offering ‘gender-affirming hysterectomies’ for young girls.”

Whether or not this is a false claim can easily be verified via the Wayback Machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20220818232821/https://www.childrenshospital.org/programs/center-gender-surgery-program

"The Center for Gender Surgery at Boston Children's Hospital offers gender affirmation surgery services to eligible adolescents and young adults"

So what exactly about the original tweet is false or 'misinformation'? Source #17 even acknowledges this within the article, stating:

"The separate Center for Gender Surgery strictly provides treatments to “eligible adolescents and young adults“."

It doesn't even disprove the claim made in the tweet, in-fact it makes the same claim within the article. If anything, source #17 is more misleading than the tweet in question. The article doesn't address how the claim is 'false' but makes the claim that it is false. The claim itself is not false, it is a verifiable fact.

Source #18 is an article regarding the same tweet. It makes a similar unsubstantiated claim that it is 'misinformation'. CodingApe (talk) 05:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Source #16 also states that the tweet is false:

"Raichik falsely claimed on Aug. 11 that Boston Children’s Hospital performs hysterectomies on children"

Unless I am missing something, this appears to be the only example of libsoftiktok spreading misinformation provided in the article. Given that tweet is not misinformation, and considering this source was used to back-up the claim on Wikipedia that this account 'spread false claims', I believe it should likely be removed as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CodingApe (talk • contribs) 05:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

WP:OR does not trump reliable sources, but in any case let’s look at your argument in detail: YMMV on what “young girls” refers to but “eligible adolescents” could mean people in their late teens, old enough to drive and sexually consent in many jurisdictions. The fact that it’s a children’s hospital, differentiating “adolescents and young adults”, makes the claim that they’re offering gender-affirmation surgery to young children dubious. So not only does your claim not cite a valid source, it also simply makes no logical sense. Dronebogus (talk) 10:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

The World Health Organization definition officially designates an adolescent as someone between the ages of 10 and 19. Is a 13 year old female not a 'young girl'?

Regardless, the 'eligible adolescents' verbiage isn't the only verbiage they used to indicate they were offering these surgeries to minors. Here are other excerpts:

"As the first pediatric center in the country dedicated to the surgical care of transgender patients"

"Our skilled team includes specialists in plastic surgery, urology, endocrinology, nursing, gender management, and social work, who collaborate to provide a full suite of surgical options for transgender teens and young adults."

"We follow the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) guidelines to surgically treat people who are stable in their gender identity and have documentation of persistent gender dysphoria."

Let's look at what the WPATH guidelines are, specifically regarding surgical care for adolescents: https://www.wpath.org/media/cms/Documents/SOC%20v8/SOC8%20Chapters%20for%20Public%20Comment/SOC8%20Chapter%20Draft%20for%20Public%20Comment%20-%20Adolescent.pdf

"17 and above for metoidioplasty, orchidectomy, vaginoplasty, and hysterectomy and fronto-orbital remodeling as part of gender affirming treatment unless there are significant, compelling reasons to take an individualized approach, considering the factors unique to the adolescent treatment frame."

This directly aligns with the verbiage they used, 'eligible adolescents'.

If libsoftiktok merely tweeted the information that the Children's Hospital had available on their website, were they intentionally spreading misinformation? Were they spreading misinformation at all? The answer to both of those questions is obviously no. CodingApe (talk) 16:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Following up on this as I came across an active PDF that utilizes the same 'eligible adolescents' verbiage: https://www.childrenshospital.org/sites/default/files/media_migration/f9a94dd5-cba9-4a58-b355-b012cb6e4e13.pdf

User Dronebogus is clearly misusing the hat template in their closure of my previous thread by attempting to win the argument and simultaneously attack my character. Not only that, but they also make several false claims.

Dronebogus states that "WP:OR does not trump reliable sources"; however, I am not asking for any information to be included in this article. I am asking for misleading sources and information to be excluded. Wikipedia encourages editors to review sources in WP:RS: "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis"

They also altered libsoftiktok's tweet in their original response to me: "makes the claim that they’re offering gender-affirmation surgery to young children dubious." libsoftiktok never made the claim that they're offering these services to children. They stated "young girls", which means adolescents or younger.

Dronebogus, if my claims are 'baseless', why haven't you examined them? All you've responded to me with is your own personal opinion on what a 'young girl' is. Whether or not these girls can "drive and sexually consent" is completely irrelevant, it has nothing to do with whether or not the tweet libsoftiktok made was misinformation. CodingApe (talk) 06:35, 2 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Far-right as defined by wikipedia: "far-right politics" has been used to describe the experiences of fascism, Nazism, and Falangism. Contemporary definitions now include neo-fascism, neo-Nazism, the Third Position, the alt-right, racial supremacism and other ideologies or organizations that feature aspects of authoritarian, ultra-nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, theocratic, racist, homophobic, transphobic, or reactionary views"

I have read the archives, the sources and liberal/conservative reporting. I can see no reason why this person is given "far-right" affiliations. I can see no reason why the FIRST SENTENCE says they are far right. I have seen no neutral sources to claim this.

I have seen no evidence for Chaya saying that lesbian people should be harmed or jailed. Not anti-lesbian. I have seen no evidence for Chaya saying that gay people should be harmed or jailed. Not anti-gay. I have seen no evidence for Chaya saying that bi-sexual people should be harmed or jailed. Not anti-bisexual. This is to say, I have seen no EVIDENCE for her being anti-LBG.

I agree there is evidence to show her opinions are against trans ideology. I have seen no evidence for Chaya saying that TRANS people should be harmed or jailed, bombed etc. She disagrees with any violence against other people. The only evidence I have seen is an ideological disagreement. Chaya expresses herself as she speaks her opinions on trans issues, especially those regarding children.

All claims of "far-right" referring to Chaya herself or the page should be REMOVED and replaced with "conservative".

There are currently 2 instances of "far-right" appearing on this wikipedia page, that refer to Chaya.

One is in the first sentence. The second is in the profile card at the top.

Also the first 6 citations are all "far-left" leaning publications. So if you want to keep the far-right tag, please cite "far-left publications have called Chaya far-right", because there is no consensus from neutral journalism. Egdiscounts (talk) 01:57, 15 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Numerous reliable sources covering Libs of TikTok characterize it as far-right. These include The Washington Post, NBC News, USA Today, PinkNews, Yahoo News, Axios, The Times of Israel, and others. Chaya Raichik is also frequently described as far-right by reliable sources. Hist9600 (talk) 03:53, 15 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please provide citations or update the post to "conservative".

Here is what I found when trying to corroborate your claim with evidence:

Taylor Lorenz has several articles directly attacking Chaya Raichik. I don't think she should be cited because she has made it clear she is a political opponent of Chaya.

Matt Lavietes is the other one to copy her rhetoric His articles speak for themselves as they are far-left. These are the past few articles by Matt:

"Florida school staffer suspended for allowing trans daughter on girls volleyball team"

"N.H. governor signs bills restricting trans health care and sports participation"

"RNC speakers lean into homophobic and transphobic rhetoric"

"11 nonbinary trailblazers to know for Nonbinary Awareness Week"

"Trans swimmer Lia Thomas' Olympic hopes are dashed after a losing legal battle"

At the Washington Post, NBC News, and usa today there is collectively over 40 articles which do not describe her as far left. And there are less than 10% of articles that describe her as far left. The extreme majority do not report on her in this way.

So here is my question:

Do the moderators on this page, you included, accept that if something is reported by the extreme minority on the other side of the political spectrum, that characterization is what we should go with here on wikipedia.

Do you agree we should describe left-leaning people by the extreme right minorities?

Do you agree we should describe right-leaning people by the extreme left minorities?

I think there is enough reason here, to say the characterization as far-right is not shared by majority of journalism. Egdiscounts (talk) 05:38, 15 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I do not understand your arguments. Merely reporting on trans issues doesn't inherently make one far-left, as it's a hot button topic that attracts interest currently. Your characterization of the report as an extreme minority seems incorrect. You state that the first 6 sources are far left, but, while the first two are of LGBT interest publications (which does not make them far left but you could concede bias from that perspective), one is a centrist israeli publication, one currently has ties to the right-leaning Hungarian government (!), one is a mainstream television network considered left wing, and one is a Jewish interest news site. I don't really see how all of them could be considered far-left leaning publications, unless one considers far left to be any viewpoint that expresses explicit pro transgender views. CloakedFerret (talk) 09:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well, he called these sources far-left, when they should just be called left-wing. But can you address his main point, which is that there may be political bias in this article, and also that there is some internal inconsistency in this article when you link Chaya to the far right, when the article on the far right is about fascism, and not harp on the fact that he used exaggerated terms like far-left? 100.16.156.64 (talk) 03:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)Reply