Talk:Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine

Information covered in The Times (which is a reliable source according to WP:RSP) and The BMJ [11] (peer reviewed and one of the most cited medical journals), shows that Alejandra Caraballo is the subject of a misinformation controversy regarding youth gender medicine. She is a known activist with strong opinions on this topic. With this current information, she is not a neutral and unbiased source. Her quote that was used in the SEGM page illustrates this bias. For this article to remain neutral, I suggest her opinion be removed as the credibility of this quote is questionable. JonJ937 (talk) 11:04, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I’m not sure Caraballo’s claim about the Cass review means her attributed view should be removed about SEGM. We include the perspectives of all sorts of people. Making a misinformed statement (per BMJ) doesn’t mean you’re blacklisted from talking about everything else.

It would make sense to use the BMJ/Times source on the article about the Cass review, if Caraballo’s comments are mentioned. Generally Wikipedia just reflects what is published in the reliable sources, and Caraballo’s source here is published and acceptable. This avoids any editorialization by individual users. Zenomonoz (talk) 11:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Even though the perspectives of all sorts of people could be considered, at the very least, the bias and associated credibility issues needs to be demonstrated. Otherwise it looks like Caraballo is some kind of a third party observer sharing her views. It was very unprofessional of Caraballo to share false information on such a sensitive issue and it is obvious that her opinions should not be taken at face value. Per WP:BIASED, biased sources can be used, but we need to consider their reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. Caraballo is hardly independent from the topic. I think that generally this article has serious neutrality issues. It mostly reflects critical opinions of entities and people associated with activism. While an alternative point of view is not adequately reflected. JonJ937 (talk) 16:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

JonJ937, see WP:BIASED which states Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate, as in "The feminist Betty Friedan wrote that..." The article does this, so it's not much of a problem. Zenomonoz (talk) 04:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

There is actually no explanation in the article of who Caraballo is. It just mentions her name. The article about her states that she is a lawyer and activist, pertinent information. JonJ937 (talk) 10:11, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

1) Those articles do not say she spread misinformation, they said Cass said she did. The Cass review has been extensively criticized by transgender health researchers and the BMJ piece takes shots at nearly every reputable scientific organization for not agreeing with the Cass Review, such as WPATH, the Endocrine Society, and the American Academy of Pediatrics.

2) WP:NPOV says All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. - The piece by Caraballo is a peer reviewed piece of academic literature, NPOV means we include it, not that we exclude it because the author is "biased".

3) "Caraballo is hardly independent from the topic" is a little silly, as the NYT called her an expert on trans issues and the she's well known for her academic work on anti-LGBT rhetoric. We try and turn towards academic experts, not claim they must be biased in their field of expertise. Please see WP:INDEPENDENT for more details. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

According to the sources, Caraballo stated that the Cass review "disregarded nearly all studies". This is not the truth and she wrote that before the review was published, i.e. without even reading it. This is obviously not a professional and unbiased statement. You quoted WP:NPOV. Which says: All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

I see nothing but critical opinions of activists and WPATH members in this article. Independent third party sources do not use terms such as anti-trans. For example, BMJ refers to SEGM as "a group of researchers and clinicians that has pushed for systematic reviews and an evidence-based approach". This is a much more neutral description. By checking the credentials of the critics, almost all of them are either WPATH members, or are somehow affiliated with this organization. For example, AJ Eckert, referenced in the lead, is a WPATH member: https://www.wpath.org/member/4277. At least 4 out of 7 Yale researchers are also affiliated with this organization and they do not represent that institution, according to the disclaimer. How are any of these people neutral and unbiased?

I am following the discussion on NPOV board about WPATH. You objected to the inclusion of critical reports from NYT, Economist and other reliable sources in the article about WPATH. Your argument was that information from these sources were undue or inordinate. How is it that information from those highly respected sources is excessive for WPATH, but marginal sources quoted in this article are all acceptable? JonJ937 (talk) 10:17, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

That BMJ article you quote is a feature, written by a "freelance journalist", not an expert on transgender healthcare. And yes, of course, experts on transgender healthcare often are members of or affiliated with the World Professional Association for Transgender Health... -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 10:27, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

As mentioned above, BMJ is a peer reviewed scholarly journal and the article was posted under “BMJ Investigation”. Whether the author is a freelance journalist or not, BMJ takes responsibility for this content and the article in question was peer reviewed. One does not have to be an expert on transgender healthcare to write about the controversies surrounding this topic. It is non-medical information, same as the Wikipedia article about SEGM. Not every transgender healthcare specialist is a WPATH member. This organisation has been in hot water recently for manipulating scholarly evidence and amending its guidelines for political purposes. All reported in major US and international media sources. WPATH is known for its negative attitude towards SEGM due to the latter’s critical stance on certain WPATH dealings. We have a clear conflict of interest here. Demonstrated when WPATH’s members opinions are presented as statements of facts, or when the article only contains criticism from WPATH and people and entities associated with activism, with no inclusion of any other alternative views. JonJ937 (talk) 12:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

"WPATH’s members opinions are presented as statements of facts": is this happening in the article? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes in the lede:

has falsely claimed that conversion therapy techniques are only practiced on the basis of sexual orientation rather than gender identity.

This is unattributed, presented as fact, in wikivoice, and the source is AJ Eckert, member of WPATH and on the USPATH board of directors. Void if removed (talk) 13:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

In the body, this would be better described starting with the fact that SEGM describes conversion therapy as only including practices targeted at bisexual, gay, and lesbian people, and following that fact up with Eckert's analysis that this is a false claim. I don't think mention is due for the lead in wikivoice or not.

I'm more concerned about the "opinion presented as fact" angle here. Membership of WPATH is not qualifying or disqualifying for reliability or weight here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't think we need to say Eckert said it's false since it's pretty clearly WP:FRINGE so is fine to state as false in wikivoice. I'd be fine removing it from the lead in place of something more to the point like SEGM has lobbied to remove protections for transgender people in conversion therapy bans. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

this would be better described starting with the fact that SEGM describes conversion therapy as only including practices targeted at bisexual, gay, and lesbian people

Not sure that's feasible, personally. The only source for what SEGM were saying is primary (a submission to Canadian Bill C-6), and that's not quite what was being said, so it gets into OR trying to add it in to "counterbalance" this. All there really is that's usable is Eckert's opinion on that, and even if I don't personally think its totally accurate, it is due because it is on WP:SBM. That's just the way the sources are, and IMO complaining about "WPATH's members opinion" is wandering into WP:NOTFORUM territory.

However, one article cited by this page actually has pretty evenly balanced coverage, and I think it is being underutilised. Eg. I think Carabello's position is WP:DUE and the allegation of "misinformation" in one unrelated case isn't anywhere enough to discount that, but arguably Gordon Guyatt and Erica Anderson are much more significant figures, and Guyatt's ambivalence and Anderson's praise (as a former WPATH board member) would make fine additions.

The fact that the BMJ treats them pretty neutrally as a group of clinicians and researchers, while the SPLC goes all the way to calling them a hate group makes it very hard to find NPOV. There's a few too many self-published sources here making allegations against named individuals, and I have to wonder if this is WP:BLPGROUP territory? Void if removed (talk) 14:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Firefangledfeathers. The imbalance is quite obvious. An example of WPATH’s members' opinions being presented as statements of facts can be found in the very first lines of the introduction in the article. Void if removed mentioned, the line "falsely claimed that conversion therapy techniques are only practiced on the basis of sexual orientation rather than gender identity" is supported by a single reference to AJ Eckert, a WPATH member, in a wikivoice with no attribution. Such publications should not be used for statements of facts, as was written in the introduction and if cited elsewhere in the article, the affiliation of this author with WPATH needs to be explicitly stated. Generally, the introduction is not written in line with NPOV guidelines. It does not present SEGM in a neutral manner and contains the opinions of biased sources. Such as a group of Yale scholars most of whom are also WPATH members. Joshua Safer, another WPATH member and Southern Poverty Law Center, which according to its RSP entry is a reliable but biased source. It is essentially a collection of biased sources knocking SEGM. I see the point made above that just being a WPATH member is not enough grounds for disqualifying a source. However, a conflict of interest here is quite obvious. In my opinion, all WPATH members view points, which are far from being balanced, belong to the body of the article with proper attribution. I suggest we completely rewrite the intro based on what third party sources say. For example, we can refer to BMJ and Undark (Void if removed, thanks for bringing it up, Undark is indeed a very good and balanced source, presenting all points of view on the subject) which are not affiliated with either party. JonJ937 (talk) 13:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

No, Undark is definitely a lower-quality source (it's a magazine by non-experts!) This is something that comes up a lot in academic contexts - WPATH is a high-quality academic source; claiming that it's "biased" because it says something that someone else disagrees with amounts to WP:FALSEBALANCE. We should reflect what WPATH says unless other sources of comparable weight disagree. Otherwise we'd run into "teach the controversy" issues when talking about evolution, climate change, and similar topics; anyone who disagrees with the academic consensus would argue that every source that asserts it is biased and must be "balanced against" using lower-quality sources. That's not how balance works - we focus on WP:BESTSOURCES, and WPATH is one of the best sources available for this topic. --Aquillion (talk) 15:19, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Undark is an MIT sponsored, award winning publication, run by highly professional journalists. Considering WPATH's leadership structure and membership, some of whom are not health professionals, but lawyers and activists, it is not a strictly professional group. WPATH does not represent the academic consensus and has recently been distinctly criticized for manipulating scholarly evidence (they commissioned professional reviews from John Hopkins University, but refused to publish them when those reviews did not deliver the results they wanted). They have also been scrutinized for lowering treatment ages for minors under pressure from a health official. All this information has been covered by major news outlets. Clearly, WPATH has a conflict of interest here. Their opinions about their opponents cannot be taken at face value. WPATH opinions must be properly attributed, and not presented as statements of facts. SEGM is not a scholarly topic, it is an organization, so news reports are acceptable here. JonJ937 (talk) 11:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

At this point I feel our views on sources are so sharply divergent that there's nothing to discuss. WPATH is, overall, one of the highest-quality sources that exist in this area and does in fact represent the academic consensus - if you look at how they are cited and WP:USEBYOTHERS, it is clear that they're considered the most authoritative voice on the subject in the medical community today. In fraught culture-war areas it is not uncommon for such high-quality sources to come under attack from people who disagree with what they say, which can give disproportionate weight to any dissent and create the appearance of disagreement where there is none; similar things happen when it comes to eg. vaccines or the creation-evolution controversy. But it would take a lot more than this to argue that it has impacted their overall reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and without that your position amounts to saying that you disagree with what they say. If you genuinely believe Undark is a better source for transgender health than WPATH, or that WPATH is somehow less than high-quality, you can bring them up on WP:RSN, where you can go over the sources you believe raised the doubts you vaguely alluded to here with more specificity; but absent that, my position is that you're trying to argue against one of the highest-quality sources in the area using a magazine article, which isn't really a workable position to take. --Aquillion (talk) 19:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I changed short description from "Organization opposing transgender rights" to just "Organization", because it was not in line with WP:NPOV JonJ937 (talk) 14:07, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The description meets NPOV because it reflects multiple RS statements about SEGM. NPOV doesn’t mean that nothing negative can be said about a subject.OsFish (talk) 14:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Which RS statements in particular? The short description must reflect general consensus among the reliable sources on what the organization is. I don't see BMJ or Undark referring to SEGM as "Organization opposing transgender rights". JonJ937 (talk) 09:18, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Undark isn't really one of the WP:BESTSOURCES here given its low quality and expertise relative to the ones already in the article. The best available sources definitely support "Organization opposing transgender rights; if you look at the article body, numerous high-quality academic sources published by authors, and in venues, with relevant expertise in the topic describe it that way. There's no reason we would resort to using a random magazine with no expertise in a situation like that. --Aquillion (talk) 15:20, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The question was which support the current short description. I think that's a fair question. You say numerous high-quality academic sources - there's Carabello, who says anti-transgender. I have had a quick skim for others, but its time consuming - if there are numerous academic sources supporting "Organization opposing transgender rights" cited in the article, can you point them out?

Undark isn't at all a poor quality source, it is certainly superior to anything self-published, and its coverage of the subject of this article seems to be far more in-depth and cross-spectrum than any other, by far. Not sure what relative expertise you're stacking it up against when the author interviewed those people whose description of SEGM are presently cited (eg. Carabello, McNamara), and repeated those positions at length. Meanwhile, the BMJ is excellent. Medscape is already cited by this page and that also doesn't use such language. Void if removed (talk) 16:37, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

This, from the article, leaps out at me as an obviously higher-quality source, as a report written by multiple experts in the field and published by an academic institution with a strong reputation. Undark simply has no such relevant expertise and no such reputation - it's a random magazine. And the problem with using an editor's personal belief that it's in-depth and cross-spectrum as an argument for citing it is that (and I know this isn't your intent, but it's why arguments like that carry no weight when discussion controversial topics like this one) that's isomorphic to saying that you agree with their conclusions; editors will naturally believe that sources that they agree with are the most balanced and in-depth ones. If you want to argue for giving them significant weight, you have to demonstrate their medical credentials or, failing that, strong WP:USEBYOTHERS. --Aquillion (talk) 02:14, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Right, the problem is that that report is I think a SPS? and explicitly carries the disclaimer that it is the opinions of the authors and not the institution. It's basically the unverified opinion of subject matter experts, while undark has an editorial board and awards for science journalism to its name. Just because something has a bunch of citations in footnotes, doesn't make it a weightier source. It's also - as with the Carabello piece - explicitly the opinion of individuals engaged in opposing sides in legal conflict, so not independent. It also doesn't explicitly support the short description AFAICT, describing SEGM as ideological, or just a website, or opposed to the affirmative model.

None are close to the BMJ in terms of quality, which is independent, peer reviewed, and a top academic journal.

Weighing this up neutrally is hard, when the best sources look like this. Having a short description that cannot be directly attributed to any of these four sources doesn't seem right though.

Maybe something like "controversial medical group" or something would square the circle. Void if removed (talk) 07:40, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes. That's how academia works. Universities don't officially endorse one viewpoint or the other as The Neutral Truth. They employ researchers who do research, and Wikipedia summarizes that research, from the perspective of the most commonly accepted (among experts) viewpoint. And yes, I dare say actual subject matter experts are more reliable than a magazine that "has an editorial board and awards for science journalism to its name". Same thing with the BMJ source. It's a journalistic article, not a peer-reviewed scientific contribution. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 09:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think medical group is giving them, far far too much credit.

Medscape (2021), says not for profit organisation.

The undark peice gives no summary.

The Yale peice explicitly points out that they are not a scientific organisation.

The bmj, just says group of researchers and physicians.

wyofile (Currently used in article), explicitly states that it is not recognised by the international medical community.

Splc, designate them as a hate group

In Science based medicine (used in article) [12] The author Dr eckert says that in their opinion segm is a transphobic organisation

If someone could have a look at the academic articles cited in article that could be a good place to find more sources so we can accurately assess what common use is.

At the moment medical or scientific seems just as (if not a more) contentious term as anti-trans for this organisation. LunaHasArrived (talk) 09:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The SPLC is also self published, and needs attribution (as well as non-independent). I've checked the Eckert article, and there's no useful citation for that opinion.

How about "controversial nonprofit organisation"? Void if removed (talk) 11:43, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

If the academic articles give no more insight then we'll go with the annoyingly vague suggestion.

I'm intrigued by the idea of independence of Carabello and the Yale report (the only academic literature I can access). From what I see they are writing reports, if the individuals are being used as expert witnesses in these trials it may be more dubious but the act of writing these reports doesn't make them any less independent than otherwise. Do you have evidence outside the sources they produced that they are not independent (note I do not mean unbiased, just independent)? LunaHasArrived (talk) 12:41, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Carabello paper notes this:

Ms. Caraballo reports that she was a staff attorney at the Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund and was counsel of record in Kadel v. Folwell, the case cited multiple times in this comment.

SPLC are plaintiffs in eg. Boe vs Marshall.

Meredithe McNamara submitted evidence in eg. Koe vs Noggle, Dekker v Weida, and Boe vs Marshall.

I note McNamara co-authored the "Integrity Project" white paper attacking the Cass Review, which she then seems to have submitted as evidence in Boe vs Marshall on the same day it was published online (July 1st 2024).

None of this is disqualifying as a source - but there's a level of non-independence here that perhaps means a pinch of salt is required. Void if removed (talk) 11:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the work. Sorry to add more but do you have Wikipedia library access because it would be useful to see what the other academic works cited in our article say?

It does look like we will have to be annoyingly vague as we can't cite or attribute in the short disc. LunaHasArrived (talk) 12:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Actually I now see that one of the references has been corrected since publication and removed all reference to SEGM:

Correction to Kuper et al. (2022) In the commentary “Supporting and Advocating for Transgender and Gender Diverse Youth and Their Families Within the Sociopolitical Context of Widespread Discriminatory Legislation and Policies,” by Laura E. Kuper, M. Brett Cooper, and Megan A. Mooney, (Clinical Practice in Pediatric Psychology, 2022, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 336–345, https://doi.org/10.1037/cpp0000456), the text was updated to remove reference to specific organizations. One reference has been updated with a new peer-reviewed article citation in the place of a previous pre-print. The online version of this article has been corrected.

I am removing this citation now.

There's only two other relevant academic citations I can see - one is by members of SEGM, and the other is a response. The response is opinion and says things like:

I do share concerns raised by the critics

While I have every reason to believe the emerging critics’ genuine concerns for young people, I do question how they write about the issue.

Never having heard of SEGM and curious about who they are, I looked them up online

It was also reported in an opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal with the provocative headline, “A Pediatric Association Stifles Debate on Gender Dysphoria” (Shreir, 2021). That opinion piece echoes many of the talking points made in the Levine et al. paper. However, using the social conservative editorial page of The Wall Street Journal to address a clinical issue brought to mind the late psychiatrist Charles Socarides, who co-founded a now-defunct organization called the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality

NARTH deliberately took upon itself the role of providing “scientific experts” who would testify in courtrooms and legislatures against gay rights. Is SEGM following a parallel path regarding transgender rights? Perhaps.

Here, as in the case of NARTH, a small group of outliers from the mainstream of clinicians who treat children (and perhaps even adults) with GD/GI present themselves as “truth-speaking” experts who will provide parents, caretakers, journalists, educators, legislators and courts with “facts” being ignored, elided over or perhaps even covered up by the mainstream

So we have an opinion piece from someone who googled them, and compared them to conversion therapists because an opinion piece in the WSJ they didn't write "echoes many of the talking points made in the Levine et al. paper."

Having now read through this source, I think it is garbage personally, but citable for the attributed opinion of the author, if that is for some reason WP:DUE. But it doesn't have any bearing on the short description. Void if removed (talk) 12:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

This article has too many quotes that are of poor quality or driven by an evident conflict of interest, what is the point in quoting this particular opinion? This person admits to knowing nothing about SEGM, but writes an opinion based on results from a Google search alone? Not very informative. An individual commenting on something they admittedly know nothing about? I suggest to remove it. And good catch on an updated reference, thanks. JonJ937 (talk) 16:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Drescher has more experience in the field than every SEGM member put together, and is the most widely cited researcher on NARTH. His comparison to NARTH is due. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Also which case is splc working on that involves segm? LunaHasArrived (talk) 12:59, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Undark is an MIT sponsored, award winning publication, run by professional reporters with a background in NYT and other prestigious news outlets, it is the only news report dedicated specifically to this organization. It is well balanced and presents all existing views on the subject. [13] According to Undark: "SEGM serves as a hub through which clinicians and researchers collaborate and it has become an influential voice in the polarized global debate over pediatric gender care". The Yale researchers mentioned in the article and Eckert are WPATH members, these people have a clear conflict of interest. Anything that comes from WPATH must be taken with skepticism, or at the very least, thoroughly contemplated. SPLC is a biased source, per RSP entry. We must give more relevance to unbiased third party sources, which in this context are BMJ (which is peer reviewed article, it says that on the BMJ page) and Undark. Such sources do not say that SEGM is anti-trans. The short description must reflect the general consensus among third party sources and it is clear that there is no consensus to call SEGM anti-trans, considering that independent sources do not use such term to describe SEGM. JonJ937 (talk) 11:51, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

1) NARTH was a "influential voice in the polarized global debate over same-sex attraction" - influential doesn't mean not pseudoscientific.

2) Attacking every WPATH member is silly, it is the world's leading health organization for trans healthcare. By this reasoning, anytime a WP:FRINGE group said something about healthcare we'd have to pretend they're on equal footing with real medical organizations.

3) The BMJ is one journalists opinion, who spends the article complaining that the heavily criticized Cass Review isn't redefining trans healthcare in the U.S. Given the sheer number of statements I've seen in the Cass Review that border on, if they aren't, misinformation I'm not especially surprised.

4) The undark article notes they contradict the AAP and Endocrine society, quotes lots of experts on anti-LGBT rhetoric noting SEGMs bias, notes there's no evidence behind their psychotherapy approach (which they used to lobby being mandatory for those under 25), notes Republicans banning care keep turning to SEGM, note their support of gender exploratory therapy, notes they've worked with pro-conversion therapy groups like the American College of Pediatricians, and notes Gordon Guyatt, the founder of Evidence Based Medicine, who is more sympathetic to SEGM than most, thinks Withholding care entirely, or even limiting it to the context of clinical trials, is not the correct path. As Guyatt sees it, SEGM places a low value on children’s autonomy. ... Guyatt suggested that SEGM is trying to have it both ways. “On the one hand, they haven’t made up their minds,” he said. But on the other hand, “they’ve made up their minds” by taking a position against gender-affirming care until more evidence arrives. - the article doesn't stop SEGM being WP:FRINGE and in fact supports it Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:14, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's notable that guyatt is actually involved in creating systematic reviews sponsored by SEGM and speaks at their conferences, so is not independent. However it is clear this is not promoting SEGM so I'm not sure what policy would say about this use. LunaHasArrived (talk) 18:45, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I would like to note in terms of academic sourcing that Jack Drescher, who was hired by the APA and WHO to develop the DSM-V/DSM-V-TR GD and ICD-11 GI diagnoses, and who is one of the leading scholars and conversion therapy and the history of NARTH, directly compared SEGM to them as they rely on the same rhetoric and tactics. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:34, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The question remains. Which independent sources call SEGM anti-trans? Guyatt quoted above does not. No one is attacking every single WPATH member here, but this organization clearly has an interest in knocking their opponents. especially in a situation when WPATH itself is in hot water for the manipulations they were engaged in. BMJ is a reliable and well respected source, and it refers to SEGM as "a group of researchers and clinicians that has pushed for systematic reviews and an evidence-based approach". There are more reliable sources. The Economist refers to SEGM as "an international group of doctors and researchers" [14] and "a non-profit group". [15]The Hill (which runs a syndicated story produced by the Associated Press that could be found at AP site as well) calls SEGM "a nonprofit group of health professionals who are concerned about medical transition risks for minors". [16] [17]. The Economist, The Hill and AP are all listed as reliable at WP:RSP. So we have at least 3 reliable sources that do not support the anti-trans claim. It has not been demonstrated that it is generally accepted by independent and reliable sources to refer to SEGM as an "Organization opposing transgender rights". No source is even using that term. Therefore, I propose to change the short description to "non-profit group" per BMJ, The Economist and The Hill/AP, and WP:NPOV. My overall concern with neutrality of this article is still unaddressed. It is written exclusively from a negative point of view, with no presentation of any alternative opinions or the view points of SEGM itself. The criticism comes from either advocacy groups/persons, or entities/people with obvious conflicts of interests (WPATH, etc). Wikipedia articles must be written in accordance with NPOV, and this article is far off the mark. JonJ937 (talk) 09:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

this organization clearly has an interest in knocking their opponents - one is a 5-decade old health organization relied on by other medical orgs worldwide, the other is a small lobbying group.

By your reasoning, any member of the American Academy of Pediatrics is non-independent from the American College of Pediatricians. We are not in the business of calling real medical orgs biased against unscientific lobbying groups.

• The economist repeats a lot of misinfo (most kids grow out of it, ROGD is real) and gives a 1 line description of SEGM. It does not give them in-depth focused coverage in either piece. Funny enough, it quotes a bunch of transphobic researchers, failing to mention most are SEGM members.
• Same with the AP news.
• Both note that places like WPATH, the AAP, and the Endocrine Society are opposed to them.

Reliable sources are overwhelmingly critical. We follow those. A few sources where somebody said "SEGM, a XYZ, said <insert misinformation here>" does not mean we can rewrite the article to try and make their pseudoscience seem more accepted than it is. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

This discussion seems to have drifted somewhat off course. I want to bring it back to the concrete question of the short description.

By this point, I hope we can all agree that Organization opposing transgender rights is not the best short description. Regardless of whether SEGM is anti-trans, their line of attack is mostly a medical, rather than a rights-based one, which is also the perspective from which most sources discuss them. In order to draft a better one, let's look at WP:SDPURPOSE.

Short descriptions provide:

• a very brief indication of the field covered by the article
• a short descriptive annotation
• a disambiguation in searches, especially to distinguish the subject from similarly titled subjects in different fields

How can we best fulfil these? A plain "organization" would not be informative enough, especially considering someone searching for "society for…" would be expecting to find articles on organizations, and not, say, banana cultivars. How do we make this more specific? Let's look at our first sentence, which serves a somewhat similar purpose: The Society For Evidence-Based Gender Medicine (SEGM) is a non-profit organization that is known for its opposition to gender-affirming care for transgender youth and for engaging in political lobbying. Now, non-profit organization has been proposed, but that is still too vague for the same reasons mentioned above. Let's then specify by their activities. This organization's main purpose is opposing gender-affirming care, so I propose we say that. Condensed to under 40 characters, that becomes: Group opposing gender-affirming care. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 12:28, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

That seems incredibly good. Thank you for the recommendation LunaHasArrived (talk) 14:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I actually propose to change the whole intro as well. It is not complaint with WP:NPOV, and not supported by reliable independent sources. Regarding WP:SDPURPOSE, it holds that SD should be subject to WP:NPOV also that "A short description is not a definition and editors should not attempt to define the article's subject nor to summarize the lead". The organization itself does not declare that it opposes gender-affirming care, they say they want it to be evidence based. Neither do the reliable sources that I quoted above say anything about opposition. BMJ says that SEGM is "a group of researchers and clinicians that has pushed for systematic reviews and an evidence-based approach" and The Hill/AP calls them "a nonprofit group of health professionals who are concerned about medical transition risks for minors". Both the Economist and The Hill refer to them as a non-profit group. The SD should be something very short that all sources agree on. Therefore something like "non-profit health group" would be the best and neutral description. JonJ937 (talk) 16:29, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

If you want to make changes to the lead, please make a new section on this talk page and propose specific changes. This whole page is already enough of a mess and makes me want to rip my face off. What they say about themselves is completely irrelevant to the question of what they are, per WP:NPOV. I won't spill more ink on your arguments about the sources; on Wikipedia, repetition does not legitimize. The SD should be something very short that all sources agree on.^{[citation needed]} In my opinion, "health group" might make some readers think their positions are accepted by the scientific community, which the academic references present in this article make very clear are not. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 18:01, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

According to WP:SDNOTDEF: "use universally accepted facts that will not be subject to rapid change, avoiding anything that could be understood as controversial, judgemental, or promotional." It is universally accepted that this is a group of health professionals and a non-profit organization. "Group opposing gender-affirming care" is not universally accepted. It is controversial and judgmental. "Organization opposing transgender rights" is even worse. JonJ937 (talk) 16:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:Avoid mission statements also goes into depth to explain why we generally do not rely on what organizations say about themselves when writing their articles. Citations to an organization's own self-description is WP:ABOUTSELF, which means it can't be used for unduly self-serving things; and a self-description for an advocacy org is usually self-serving. More generally, the short description should summarize what the organization is most notable for. It's not impossible to tweak it, but it would absolutely have to focus on their position on trans rights or gender-affirming care or the like; just skimming the article makes it clear that calling them a non-profit health group would be an inadequate summary to the point of being inaccurate. Most coverage does not focus on their nonprofit status (so it doesn't belong in the short description), and most coverage is very specific about what they advocate for, which is not "health" in general. --Aquillion (talk) 19:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

As MfC points out below, the current wording is unsupportable by existing sources (specifically, opposing rights). Something about the gender affirming model is arguable, but rights is not IMO. Void if removed (talk) 20:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Maddy from Celeste I think that undersells them a little, per the body they've opposed conversion therapy bans and lobbied against trans-inclusive materials in schools. Additionally, per the body they're very outside the mainstream. I'd be ok with keeping it as is, or something like fringe group opposing gender-affirming care Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:42, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think you're overrating the importance of the short descriprion here. We have plenty of space in the article to cover all of what you mention and more. The short description is there for the three WP:SDPURPOSEs. That, and its very short length, means we can't include everything important about this group there, but we should have some distinctive characteristic. And I think there, SEGM's focus on gender-affirming care is the most distinctive. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 17:54, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Concerning the current wording, the elephant in the room is that it is not supported in the text of the article. You can Ctrl+F in the article for "rights". The closest thing to the short description's claim is a quote from the SPLC, which alone is not enough. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 19:28, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

That's fair, I support your proposed wording. On reflection, it does also fit the sources better as a whole, which generally frame Genspect as the more general advocacy group with SEGM focusing on generating/spreading the misinformation. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

You don't have a good source for "fringe". Void if removed (talk) 20:28, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

To summarize what I wrote above. According to the rules, the SD must be short, neutral, non-controversial, non-judgemental, and based on universally accepted facts. "Organization opposing transgender rights" is a severe violation of this guideline, and contradicts every SD requirement. It must be immediately amended. "Group opposing gender-affirming care" is not much better. I propose we bring the SD in compliance with the guidelines by replacing it with "International group of health professionals". This is something that all sources agree with, and is neutral, non-controversial, and non-judgemental. I don't think this is worth so much discussion, it is quite obvious that we cannot keep the SD in its current form. JonJ937 (talk) 14:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Given the polarised views, I think you'll struggle to get agreement for "health professionals". Unsatisfying though it is, I would suggest we change it to the completely anodyne "non-profit organisation" to fix what is currently clearly unsupportable, and then discuss improving that as a separate act. If we cannot find consensus for anything better than that, that's one thing, but there seems broad agreement that what is there right now is invalid. Void if removed (talk) 15:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't get what you think is so contentious about my proposal, though. Is there any source that claims SEGM is for gender-affirming care? -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 15:26, 16 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I suspect that they would be mortified at the mere thought that anybody might suggest that they were. Anyway, I agree that the proposal is completely uncontroversial. Maybe "organisation" instead of "group" but that's the closest thing I can see to a valid quibble. Anybody claiming that it is not sufficiently supported by the article body knows how to fix that. If the body of the article has been bowdlerised to the point that it does not support even the simplest possible statement of what the subject actually is then obviously that needs to be rectified. DanielRigal (talk) 17:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree that "non-profit organisation" is the most appropriate solution. It is a universally accepted fact that is not challenged by any source and is noncontroversial. "Non-profit health organisation" may work too. Also, if you check the WPATH article's SD, it is simply "organization". For American Academy of Pediatrics it is "US professional association". For Endocrine Society it is "American medical society". So something similar needs to be done in this article as well. It should state a simple fact of what type of entity this is. What they do must be explained in the article's body and not in a 3 word short description. JonJ937 (talk) 12:22, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think the fact that, as you say, WPATH just says "organisation" pretty much swings it that there's no justification for holding out for some more specific version. Frankly I'd accept "organisation" here as well. Void if removed (talk) 15:41, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think that's a justification that wpath should be more descriptive, not that this shortdisc should be less. LunaHasArrived (talk) 16:34, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Works for me. Initially, I actually changed the SD to "organization" and started this thread to explain my edit, but it was reverted. The simpler the SD is the better, I think that is the whole idea of it. JonJ937 (talk) 17:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Maybe some more apt comparisons,

American College of Pediatricians SD is conservative advocacy group

National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality SD is "former US organisation promoting conversion therapy"

I still don't see any argument against MFC's suggestion and 4 people here seem to like it (myself, MFC, danielrigal and YFNS) LunaHasArrived (talk) 17:30, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

As I said before, MFC's suggestion is not neutral. It is controversial and judgmental. We need to pick a universally accepted fact. SEGM being a non-profit organization is such universally accepted fact. Or just organization will do, until we find a better solution. The present one needs to be replaced ASAP. JonJ937 (talk) 10:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Again, what is "controversial and judgmental" about them opposing gender-affirming care? Does any source disagree that that's their position? -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 11:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

From the Undark source, for example:

Erica Anderson: "The group does not exist so much to oppose gender-affirming care as to determine the best approach to gender-questioning youth"

a group for professionals with concerns about gender-affirming care

SEGM has critiqued the gender-affirmative model of care

taking a position against gender-affirming care until more evidence arrives.

Opposes is too strong, "concerns about" is too weak and open to whitewashing. "Critical of" is maybe about right but it is flimsy sourcing.

The problem is none of these are universal and uncontroversial descriptors (different sources describe them in different terms), which is what the "short description" is for. So we should go to the lowest common denominator. Void if removed (talk) 11:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Unless I'm misreading the formatting (in which case I apologise). It seems like Undark agrees they opposed GAC (at least with the current level of evidence) and Undark quotes that Erica Anderson disagrees. This seems like source agreeing with the statement. LunaHasArrived (talk) 14:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm inclined to agree, the short description should comply with Wikipedia rules. Non-profit organization or just organization seems the most appropriate short description. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 14:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Subjective opinions should be removed from the main body of the article and moved to the 'Criticism' section. I also urge those who can edit the article to consider the arguments presented in the Cass Report and remove the moral panic surrounding 'conversion therapy.' This is a harmful stance that has a real impact on medical professionals who are searching for ways to address the serious condition of gender dysphoria.

Cass Report: https://cass.independent-review.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/CassReview_Final.pdf (page 202, 17.20) Отец Никифор (talk) 01:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC) — Отец Никифор (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reply

You will need to be a lot more specific on which edits you would like to see. The Cass reference isn't about SEGM. This page is about SEGM.OsFish (talk) 09:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The group routinely cites the unproven concept of rapid-onset gender dysphoria and has falsely claimed that conversion therapy techniques are only practiced on the basis of sexual orientation rather than gender identity. SEGM is often cited in anti-transgender legislation and court cases, sometimes filing court briefs.

This statement references SEGM's brief to the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs (available here: https://sencanada.ca/content/sen/committee/432/LCJC/Briefs/2021-05-07_LCJC_C-6_Brief_SEGM_e.pdf), where they express concern that psychological support for patients with gender dysphoria might be categorized as 'conversion therapy'

There is a very real risk that all forms of supportive and explorative psychotherapies for young patients who present with gender dysphoria will be classified as “conversion”.

They caution about the risk of labeling supportive and exploratory psychotherapy for young patients with gender dysphoria as "conversion therapy". A similar concern is also highlighted in the Cass Report:

17.20 The reluctance of clinicians to engage in the clinical care of gender-questioning children and young people was recognised earlier in this report. Clinicians cite this stems from the weak evidence base, lack of consistent professional guidance and support, and the long-term implications of making the wrong judgement about treatment options. In addition, concerns were expressed about potential accusations of conversion practice when following an approach that would be considered normal clinical practice when working with other groups of children and young people.

Given these points, I believe SEGM’s perspective is quite valid and may not deserve such a biased description. A more balanced representation would better serve readers by reflecting the complexity of this issue. Отец Никифор (talk) 14:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC) — Отец Никифор (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reply

These are indeed valid concerns. I agree that all critical opinions, in particular by WPATH members, activists and advocacy groups, should be moved to the criticism section. The affiliation of each source should also be indicated. In addition the opinion of Eckert needs to be balanced by the opinion of SEGM, so both sides of the dispute are presented. JonJ937 (talk) 10:05, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Giving "equal validity" can create a false balance. Eckert's "opinion" here appears to be a statement of fact about SEGM's position that,

Using the term “conversion therapy” in the context of gender dysphoria is not only misleading but also inaccurate. “Conversion therapy” refers to an ideological and, historically, religiously-motivated effort to “convert” lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals to become heterosexual. [...] To suggest that this practice is being applied to gender-questioning youth is erroneous and will only serve to further inflame the already highly politicized field of transgender medicine.

The mainstream medical consensus is that GICE certainly do exist, and are "conversion therapy". –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 12:41, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The article does not currently have a section called "Criticism"; we generally try to avoid sections and articles focusing on criticisms or controversies. Quarantining notable controversies (rather than integrating them according to due weight tends to harm rather than improve an article's neutrality. Given the hate group designation and the breadth of critical sources, I think it's important that readers come away from the lead without misconceptions about this group, particularly its misleading name, and its standing within the medical community. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 12:49, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

It is important to view this statement in context to understand its meaning:

Using the term “conversion therapy” in the context of gender dysphoria is not only misleading but also inaccurate. “Conversion therapy” refers to an ideological and, historically, religiouslymotivated effort to “convert” lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals to become heterosexual. Conversion therapy has not been practiced or supported in any domain of Canada’s health system for at least 30 years in relation to LGB individuals. To suggest that this practice is being applied to gender-questioning youth is erroneous and will only serve to further inflame the already highly politicized field of transgender medicine.

SEGM does not support harmful practices towards individuals with gender dysphoria. The skepticism surrounding medical and surgical interventions is grounded in research.

In my opinion, psychological support aimed at self-acceptance should not be equated with ‘conversion therapy,’ as remission of gender dysphoria is a well-documented phenomenon. This makes it a valid area of study.

SEGM highlights critical research, and this is an essential contribution to the development of science.

I believe that the appeal to ‘false balance’ is not applicable here, as SEGM’s position is backed by research, and based on the provided sources, I don’t see grounds for such negative framing.

Once again, I would like to point out the concerns raised by medical professionals about the misuse of the term ‘conversion therapy’ to politicize legitimate approaches to treating gender dysphoria. I believe this article exemplifies such an undesirable approach, which hinders healthy and constructive dialogue among experts. Отец Никифор (talk) 14:26, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

based on the provided sources

You provided two sources. One is primary and one is the Cass Review final report, which doesn't support anything in your reply. Please provide WP:MEDRS sources to support your medical claims if you want them to have any impact on the article. Flounder fillet (talk) 20:17, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Based on the provided sources

Here, I am referring to the sources cited in the article, not my own sources. I believe that the available references do not sufficiently support such negative framing.

Additionally, I am unsure which specific claims you want me to substantiate. My primary point is that the article seems to violate WP:NPOV:

• Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that genocide is an evil action but may state that genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil.

I am not opposed to including these opinions in the article, but they should be represented in line with WP:NPOV as described here:

• Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. For example, to state that According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field.

Отец Никифор (talk) 21:26, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The issue is that high-quality (that is, academic and medical) sourcing on RoGD is quite one-sided; you can see the Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy article for many more, but on this one, see this. It would be inappropriate and potentially WP:PROFRINGE to present this as a mere difference of opinion between equal and opposite sides; this is more of a situation where avoid stating facts as opinions comes into play - academic support for RoGD outside of Littman herself is almost nonexistent, while opposition is overwhelming to the point where we have to present it as (at the very least) unproven. Likewise, while we indicate the relative prominence of opposing views, this is subject to WP:ACADEMICBIAS in the sense that we defer to higher-quality sources; there may be many tabloids and magazines with no expertise that treat RoGD with credulity, but that's not relevant when the academic and medical consensus is so clear-cut. --Aquillion (talk) 02:24, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The problem here is we have a couple of interdependent articles which are reinforcing each other circularly.

For example: Well-sourced high quality material (namely the Cass Review) is excluded from Gender exploratory therapy because it is (purportedly) "referencing SEGM".

And then the resulting skewed picture is reiterated over here on WP:PROFRINGE grounds. The same is true over on ROGD.

This starts to look like "SEGM promote pseudoscience like ROGD and exploratory therapy, which are pseudoscience because SEGM promote them". Void if removed (talk) 11:33, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Nobody has said they are pseudoscience because SEGM promote them, they are just plainly pseudoscience.

• ROGD doesn't exist, somebody asked a bunch of transphobic parents "did your kids catch trans from the internet", said "this is evidence kids catch trans from the internet", and was forced to rewrite the article to clarify "this is not evidence of that". The author, along with SEGM, repeatedly claim it exists without evidence. ROGD is one of the most mind-boggling stupid concepts ever floated in trans healthcare, and it would be funny if it wasn't solely used as a pretext to attack trans kids.
• GET has literally no evidence whatsoever it's effective. It is based on the notion, opposed by all major medical organizations, that being trans is the result of trauma or etc. It's just reparative therapy with a few words changed. The promoters of it have a tendency to try and kick trans people out of bans of conversion therapy.

Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:36, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

An important principle we use in writing Wikipedia is to not rely on primary sources (and thereby, our own analysis thereof), but to summarize secondary sources; that is, sources that interpret the primary sources. Can you cite secondary sources that support your interpretation of their statements? -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 10:28, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please clarify the statement that you want me to back with sources Отец Никифор (talk) 17:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Your view on SEGM's statements on GET/GICE/conversion therapy. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 18:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I believe SEGM’s perspective is quite valid yeah ok no. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 10:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The opinion of Eckert must be correctly attributed, per Wikipedia NPOV rules. JonJ937 (talk) 11:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The opinion of who? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 12:01, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Also, this is not just the opinion of one person, but multiple organizations, as mentioned multiple times on this talk page. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 12:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

From the lead section of this article: Researchers at the Yale School of Medicine issued a report which described SEGM as "a small group of anti-trans activists". The quoted text is not however, from the Yale report, but from the Vice article summarizing the report. I think this is confusing, as the surrounding sentence to me implies that the quote is from the report, and not Vice's analysis. How should this be clarified? I suggest removing the quotation marks. One could argue that that would be an unattributed quotation of Vice. However, it is five words, (arguably WP:LIMITED) and I think much better than misquoting the Yale report. Other solutions are of course more than welcome. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 11:12, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

If it is what this group said, it should be in quotation marks. JonJ937 (talk) 12:01, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please clarify. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 12:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

If that's not in the Yale report it shouldn't be quoted. I agree it falls under limited. Your solution seems the simplest. LunaHasArrived (talk) 13:02, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I support removing the quotation marks for the reasons given, seems a good limited summary of the Yale report:

a fringe group whose listed advisors have limited (or no) scientific and medical credentials and include well-known anti-trans activists.

[SEGMs] 14 core members are a small group of repeat players in anti-trans activities – a fact that the SEGM website does not disclose. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

My ideal solution would be a slight rephrase along with removing the quotes, maybe something like a small anti-trans group. But just removing the quotes should be okay. It's so short there aren't many ways to phrase that. Loki (talk) 21:22, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

If it is a quotation, it should be in quotation marks per WP:QUOTEUSE. JonJ937 (talk) 09:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

But it is not an accurate quotation of the Yale report, as the context implies. It is technically a quotation of Vice, and there's no reason to be quoting them directly on this, hence this discussion. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 10:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Any quote needs to be properly referenced, attributed and put in the quotation marks according to guidelines. One would rather quote directly from the primary source. SEGM's response to this opinion was provided in the Undark report and must be included as well, again with proper attribution, etc. As for Vice, there is no consensus at RSP to consider it a reliable source, so we might as well remove it. JonJ937 (talk) 17:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

After discussing with other editors, I decided to review media coverage of SEGM by searching for information about SEGM.

Google: "SEGM", only news

1. SEGM website (I will skip in future but will keep numbers)

2. Undark Magazine Undark Magazine is not listed in WP:RSPSS but is described as

Undark is a non-profit, editorially independent digital magazine exploring the intersection of science and society. It is published with generous funding from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, through its Knight Science Journalism Fellowship Program at MIT.

Neutral coverage. Both positive and negative opinions about SEGM are presented.

3. BMJ Group

There are discussions about the reliability of the BMJ. British media journal describes SEGM as

a group of researchers and clinicians that has pushed for systematic reviews and an evidence-based approach.

In the article, SEGM members provide opinions about the reaction to the Cass Report in the US. Positive coverage.

5. Assigned Media No information about reliability. Very little information is available about it. Appears to be activist media. Negative coverage. SEGM is described as an "activist group".

6. Pink News Considered reliable

There is rough consensus that PinkNews is generally reliable for factual reporting, but additional considerations may apply and caution should be used. Most of those who commented on PinkNews' reliability for statements about a person's sexuality said that such claims had to be based on direct quotes from the subject.

Negative coverage. SEGM is described as

SEGM primarily consists of medical professionals and academics who oppose trans people’s right to gender-affirming care such as hormones, puberty blockers, and surgery.

7. Focus On The Family Fundamentalist Protestant organization. Probably not a reliable source. Just quoted SEGM as experts.

22. Southern Poverty Law Center WP:SPLC considered a reliable but biased source

The Southern Poverty Law Center is considered generally reliable on topics related to hate groups and extremism in the United States. As an advocacy group, the SPLC is a biased and opinionated source. The organization's views, especially when labeling hate groups, should be attributed per WP:RSOPINION. Take care to ensure that content from the SPLC constitutes due weight in the article and conforms to the biographies of living persons policy. Some editors have questioned the reliability of the SPLC on non-United States topics. SPLC classifications should not automatically be included in the lead section of the article about the group which received the classification. The decision to include should rather be decided on a case-by-case basis.

Negative coverage. SEGM is described as part of a pseudoscience network.

49. Mother Jones WP:MOTHERJONES Reliable but biased source

There is consensus that Mother Jones is generally reliable. Almost all editors consider Mother Jones a biased source, so its statements (particularly on political topics) may need to be attributed. Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article.

Negative coverage. SEGM is named a "Notable anti-trans group".

53. Medscape No information found on WP:RSPSS but it has a page on Wikipedia with criticism Medscape#Criticisms

Positive coverage. SEGM is named as:

international group of doctors who question whether hormone treatment is the most appropriate way to treat adolescents with gender dysphoria.

62. Assigned Media, mentioned in 5.

63. WSJ Opinion WP:WSJ considered reliable but it is an Opinion

Most editors consider The Wall Street Journal generally reliable for news. Use WP:NEWSBLOG to evaluate the newspaper's blogs, including Washington Wire. Use WP:RSOPINION for opinion pieces.

Positive coverage. SEGM is described as "Doctors who question the orthodoxy".

66. Assigned Media, mentioned in 5 and 62.

67. National Catholic Register Catholic newspaper. Probably not reliable. SEGM just mentioned.

68. The New York Times Reliable source. Positive coverage

group called the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine that has been highly critical of gender treatments for minors

69. Buzz Feed News WP:BUZZFEEDNEWS Generally reliable with nuances

There is consensus that BuzzFeed News is generally reliable. BuzzFeed News operated separately from BuzzFeed, and most news content originally hosted on BuzzFeed was moved to the BuzzFeed News website in 2018. In light of the staff layoffs at BuzzFeed in January 2019, some editors recommend exercising more caution for BuzzFeed News articles published after this date. The site's opinion pieces should be handled with WP:RSOPINION. BuzzFeed News shut down in May 2023, and its archives remain accessible. See also: BuzzFeed.

Negative coverage. Describes SEGM as

A small number of highly controversial doctors and researchers

70. National Review WP:NATIONALREVIEW No consensus. Partisan Positive coverage. SEGM is named as "international group of over 100 clinicians and researchers".

Modified response Google: "society for evidence-based gender medicine", only news provided too few related articles from reliable sources, so I didn't include it.

While this is not all the news available online, it seems sufficient to suggest that the article may be imbalanced. Negative coverage often comes from biased sources, while medical sources tend to describe SEGM neutrally or positively.

The current article is entirely negative and violate WP:NPOV, using Wikipedia's voice to present opinions as facts. For example, a clear opinion is stated as fact:

Short description: Organization opposing transgender rights

SEGM's position is not presented at all. The whole article reflects the viewpoint of their ideological opponents. Отец Никифор (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand the issue with rewriting the article in a neutral manner, similar to how Undark did. Their piece covers both positions, whereas the current article only presents the negative side. Отец Никифор (talk) 20:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please see WP:BESTSOURCES. On a medical topic, we follow academic sources and not newspapers. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 21:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

No, these are not medical opinions. They are opinions about the organization itself, and much of the current negative coverage is based on biased viewpoints. Отец Никифор (talk) 08:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

SEGM's main purpose is promoting certain views on medicine, so obviously medical sources are the most relevant, not nonexpert journos looking to write an engaging story. Actually that WSJ opinion piece (a completely irrelevant source for what it's worth) hits the nail on the head: Doctors who question the orthodoxy (except that apparently few to none of them are doctors). One small problem: per the very NPOV you cite, Wikipedia is the orthodoxy. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 10:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't see how you get any sentiment about the organisation from the New York Times article, positive or negative, considering there's less than a sentence about it as part of the 4 sentences on Mason (the founder) lobbying. Neither lobbying nor being pleased are inherently positive activities. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I also don't really see the benefit of doing original research on sentiment of the sources when it seems much simpler to just take a collection of things the sources are saying instead. It's an unusual way of going about things. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is not a medical topic. This is an article about an organization, not a disease or medical treatment. See WP:NOTBMI and WP:MEDPOP. In addition to the sources mentioned above, I can add that The Economist refers to SEGM as "an international group of doctors and researchers" [18] and "a non-profit group". [19], and The Hill (which runs a syndicated story produced by the Associated Press that could be found at AP site as well) calls SEGM "a nonprofit group of health professionals who are concerned about medical transition risks for minors". [20] [21]. The Economist, The Hill and AP are all listed as reliable at WP:RSP. I fully agree that this article is in violation of WP:NPOV. The balance is off as, only negative opinions are presented. Most of which come from biased sources such as advocacy groups or members of WPATH, who have a conflict of interest here. Maybe we need to ask for a community review of this article. JonJ937 (talk) 10:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

You need to start citing sources that talk about SEGM, not just cite SEGM. We can't build a Wikipedia article out of extremely brief mentions in various sources LunaHasArrived (talk) 11:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

You need to start citing sources that talk about SEGM

That's what they just did? Void if removed (talk) 11:36, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Name one thing SEGM has done by using the above articles LunaHasArrived (talk) 11:53, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The illustrative issue at the top of the thread appears to be the short description. How RS refer to the subject is important to that, and these sources are relevant for establishing it. (However, there's a dedicated topic for that, and I'm not in favour of that being rehashed all over again here - I think the points made in this comment thread make more sense there). Void if removed (talk) 15:16, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

But this article has plenty of brief mentions. We have this obscure source that only has a single line about SEGM. [22] Or this, [23], which I understand is some regional newspaper that dedicated a couple of lines to SEGM. How is this better than the world renowned The Economist or Associated Press? Or the opinion of a person who admits to knowing nothing about SEGM, other than what they read on the internet more credible? There is only one article dedicated specifically to the subject of this article, which is Undark. Otherwise, this organization received little dedicated coverage. Therefore, the references to the independent reliable sources must be used in the intro and the short description to rewrite them in a neutral manner. The intro should not contain any non-neutral personal opinions. Especially considering that the sources providing those opinions are either recognized as biased in WP:RSPSS, or have an obvious conflict of interest. The preference should always be given to independent sources. Opinionated sources must be quoted in the body with proper attribution. JonJ937 (talk) 15:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

If you want to ask for a community review of this article, you may post at WP:NPOVN or, if you have a specific question you want the community to consider, you may start a WP:RFC. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 12:01, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I would say general complaints about bias are likely to descend into arguments that go nowhere. I suggest sticking to specifics and if possible expanding the article with some of the material in the Undark piece.

I do however think we should draw a distinction between WP:SPS and better sources, at the very least, and consider whether there are WP:BLP or WP:BLPGROUP issues here. Void if removed (talk) 15:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

For example, the following sentence:

SEGM is closely affiliated with the non-profit organization Genspect: Julia Mason, Marcus Evans, Roberto D’Angelo, Sasha Ayad, Stella O'Malley, Lisa Marchiano, and Avi Ring are advisors for SEGM and are on Genspect's team or advisors; O'Malley is the founder of Genspect.

This has three citations, one of which is a WP:SPS and should not be used per WP:BLPSPS.

We can source the current list of advisors/founders etc from their site directly, per WP:ABOUTSELF if required, no reason to go to these lengths.

The following two sentences shouldn't be included, per WP:BLPSPS

Marchiano and O'Malley are on the board of Lisa Littman's Institute for Comprehensive Gender Dysphoria Research (ICGDR). SEGM members O'Malley and Robert P. George are also advisors to the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism. Void if removed (talk) 16:15, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree, SPLC is not the best source for factual statements. It is more appropriate to find something neutral and unbiased for such information. Also, I agree that this article should be treated as WP:BLP or WP:BLPGROUP, given the many BLP violations in the article. For example, the article states "In August, Vice News characterized William Malone as an "anti-trans activist". The reference is made to Vice, which is not recognized as RS at WP:RSPSS. This is not in accordance with BLP guidelines JonJ937 (talk) 13:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Are you really trying to restart the "we can't use the SPLC for factual statements about the org" debate again? Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:58, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

This page came to my attention as it was mentioned during the now archived discourse on the NPOV discussion page concerning the inclusion of articles from The Economist, The New York Times, and The Hill on the WPATH page. Reading the recent comments on this talk page, I have observed a clear inconsistency in how the arguments around WP:DUE & WP:UNDUE are being applied. Despite these sources being widely recognized as credible and listed as reliable at WP:RSPSS, certain users argued that their content was WP:UNDUE for inclusion on the WPATH page. [24] With regards to progress on the WPATH page - Eventually, we agreed on the inclusion of some of these sources in the article about SOC8, but not in the article about WPATH, despite this organization being at the center of the controversy. However, I’ve now noticed that specific users, who were opposing the inclusion of these reputable sources in the WPATH article, are now participating in the discussion on the SEGM page and are asserting suitability for the inclusion of less prominent or fringe sources that are critical of SEGM. This raises concerns about a potential double standard in relation to objectivity and what is due on organization pages. Reliable and mainstream sources such as The Economist, The New York Times, and The Hill were previously being challenged or excluded from WPATH article, while on the SEGM page, less established or fringe sources appear to be more readily accepted.

As result, there is no criticism in the article about WPATH, while the article about SEGM contains nothing but criticism, most of which comes from sources that can hardly be considered reliable or neutral. Such a disparity in the application of Wikipedia's due weight policy seems inconsistent with the platform's guidelines on neutrality, verifiability, and balance. Can anybody account for a justifiable rationale for this seeming double and inconsistent standard of what is reputable and passes the muster of notability and reliability, or shall we rather acknowledge that many of the sources cited in these criticisms against SEGM are not reputable enough and this page needs to be brought in a more neutral state in accordance with Wikipedia rules? Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 15:35, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

We have RS that say SEGM supports this misinformation; supported this bill opposed by all major medical organizations; did thing X; etc. We have a much smaller number of RS saying Somebody from SEGM, a XYZ, said ABC, ABC being misinformation.

Citing the latter, all we can say is "SEGM said ABC", which raises questions of due, as it tells us absolutely nothing about the organization.

There is no double standard, WPATH is the world's oldest trans health organization, SEGM is a small WP:FRINGE group of conversion therapy advocates. RS are overwhelmingly critical of the latter. As one of those "few specific users" you refer to, I'll note that at WPATH you kept trying to cite opinion pieces, and I added lots of criticism to the WPATH article that were actually supported by RS. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

That is a selectively distorted, and inaccurate representation of the situation. The articles from The New York Times, The Economist, and The Hill are not opinion pieces, but factual reports from highly reliable sources. However, you argued that their reports were WP:UNDUE for the WPATH article. Yet here, you claim that information from fringe and biased sources is WP:DUE for SEGM. This is a clear double standard: you dismiss critical information about WPATH, even when supported by multiple reputable sources, while accepting and promoting any critical information about SEGM, even when it comes from fringe or biased outlets. The criteria for WP must be applied consistently, not selectively, based on the organization in question. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 10:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

In line with consistency, I believe to avoid magnifying this issue we should move such critical statements by these fringe sources to a separate header "Reactions" per wikipedia rules and allow the general article its due objectivity by reporting according to facts and in line with relevant, notable, and reputable sources. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 10:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Which fringe sources are you referring to? Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Looking through references, there are little-known sources such as: Los Angeles Blade, transsafety.network, WyoFile, Gay City News, The Advocate, etc. If i can add to this based on the above commentary by other users, there are sources such as advocacy, or groups and individuals that are considered biased being cited too. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Looking through these sources and what they're used for

LABLADE is always used alongside LGBTQNATION to give due to SPLC reports.

Trans safety network (and Moore) has been discussed before at rsn and consensus was it was biased but reliable for nonblp statements (what we use it for)

Wyofile has an error correction policy and an editing policy so seems like a decent local source considering we use it for basic fact.

Gay city news has been discussed on rsn and was deemed reliable for nonblp in their niche (which the statement of basic fact definitely is)

The advocate is used alongside other sources and has an editing team but from a brief glance I can't see any editing or corrections policy.

From the above I can see the argument for removal of the advocate and LAblade but neither of those would change any content in the article.

I will note that bias is not a reason to exclude sources on Wikipedia so there would be no need to exclude subject matter experts (if there ever was). LunaHasArrived (talk) 19:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

For the record, I want to note The Advocate (magazine) is a newspaper of record and is the oldest LGBT news source in the U.S. (over 5 decades old). They provide a spot for submitting corrections here[25]. In the past I've often see people try and argue it's biased and unusable, but consensus has always found against that. Challenging that would require launching a discussion at RSN. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the correction. LunaHasArrived (talk) 19:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your input, but I would like to clarify my position concerning the sources being used and their applicability to this article under Wikipedia's guidelines for WP:DUE and WP:UNDUE.

The issue at hand is not merely bias—though bias does play a role in the interpretation of the sources—but the degree of reliability, editorial oversight, and notability of the sources in shaping the discourse of an article that demands an especially high standard of neutrality. (The following will lend to why I say they might be suitable to be kept, but in a separate header for "Reactions" rather than to steer the whole narrative of the article.)

Los Angeles Blade and Gay City News – Both are niche, advocacy-driven outlets, which is important to consider when determining their use in articles of significant weight, such as this one. The Los Angeles Blade and Gay City News are not widely recognized for investigative reporting or neutral journalism, particularly on highly charged issues. While they can be used to reflect opinions within their niche, It seems clear that their prominence and editorial rigor are insufficient to present them as key sources for facts about an organization like SEGM. Their use should be limited, if not avoided, for making major claims that significantly shape the reader’s understanding of the organization.

Trans Safety Network – As acknowledged in previous RSN discussions, Trans Safety Network has been recognized as biased but deemed reliable for non-BLP statements. That said, when introducing critical discourse about SEGM, an organization often at odds with WPATH and its supporters, a more neutral and less advocacy-driven source should be prioritized to avoid skewing the narrative. Given its known bias, relying on Trans Safety Network for contentious claims about SEGM introduces a potential conflict with Wikipedia guidelines, as it paints the organization in a consistently negative light without the balance of more neutral, high-quality sources. If there were more neutral, credible sources to back it up then that would be another case. (If you refer to RSN: [26] - The discussion has not been formally closed, but I see that many users have expressed concerns and disapproval of this source, highlighting its bias, and that it has limited suitability, if at all. Multiple users said it could only be used for statements of opinions, but even that is questionable. At the very least, until there's consensus it shouldn't be used as supporting statements of "fact". Furthermore, [27] clearly reads as a blog post, of which reference 16 of this SEGM article is attributed to as statements of fact. This is surely untenable.

WyoFile – While WyoFile might have an editorial and error correction policy, it is still a local, smaller publication with limited reach. Using local or lesser-known outlets to bolster significant critiques of SEGM introduces a disproportionate weight to their claims, particularly when more reputable, well-established outlets should be used for substantial allegations. The small-scale nature of WyoFile limits its credibility in shaping a larger narrative about an internationally relevant topic.

The Advocate – Like the others mentioned, The Advocate is an LGBTQ+ advocacy-driven source, which may have its place in reflecting opinions or minority viewpoints. However, as it is primarily editorial in nature with limited editorial oversight or error-correction protocols, using it to substantiate factual claims or significant criticisms of SEGM seems unwarranted. It should not be treated as a primary source for critical content that could shape the reader's perception of SEGM.

It is worth noting that Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ supporting your discourse argued that highly reputable sources like The New York Times, The Economist, and The Hill were WP:UNDUE for the WPATH article. Yet, the same user is now contending that the aforementioned niche, advocacy-driven, and lesser-known sources (such as Los Angeles Blade, Trans Safety Network, and Gay City News) are WP:DUEfor the SEGM article. This double standard undermines the consistency of how WP:DUE and WP: UNDUE is being applied, and it distorts the balance of the SEGM article by over-relying on less reliable sources to criticize the organization. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 09:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

A lot of ink is being spilled over this with no clear proposals for how to improve the article. Perhaps it may be helpful to scroll up to the top of this page and read the title there. This is Talk:Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine, not Talk:World Professional Association for Transgender Health. Please focus your comments on specific changes to this article, rather than whatever YFNS has said about WPATH. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 09:38, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have proposed specifics above. At minimum, every BLP statement sourced to a SPS should, with some urgency, be sourced from an independent secondary source or removed, per WP:BLPSPS, especially those from non-independent SPS.

Here's a quick scan of BLP statements currently cited to an SPS, and without attribution:

Stephen B. Levine is an advisor to SEGM. SEGM, among other affiliated groups, was formed through connections in the "Pediatric and Adolescent Gender Dysphoria Working Group", a group of 17 academics and researchers including Kenneth Zucker, Ray Blanchard, and J. Michael Bailey.

Marchiano and O'Malley are on the board of Lisa Littman's Institute for Comprehensive Gender Dysphoria Research (ICGDR). SEGM members O'Malley and Robert P. George are also advisors to the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism.

SEGM director Julia Mason tweeted that SEGM would not work with members of ACPeds and denied knowing ACPeds member Paul Hruz despite co-authoring papers and co-hosting symposia with him. ACPeds has explicitly promoted the work of SEGM; Quentin Van Meter encouraged audience members to work with SEGM at a conference held by “ex-gay” ministry First Stone Ministries.

Then there's questions about whether, attributed or not, non-independent SPS statements like this are WP:BLPGROUP:

The report also stated SEGM members are affiliated with the "anti-LGBTQ+ far right".

Or even DUE for this article, especially with the WP:WEASEL wording:

GETA is a group of therapists founded in 2021 by four SEGM members and a Genspect advisor to market what experts believe is transgender conversion therapy. Void if removed (talk) 10:06, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Void, I see you made this claim a week ago as well, but since when was SPLC a self-published source? PRIMARY? Sure. RSOPINION? I'll grant that in most cases. In what way is it self-published? I'm not sure how you even came to such a conclusion. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

SPS includes virtually all websites eg. A corporate website is self-published. That includes reports material written and published by advocacy organisations. This is a report by SPLC, published on SPLCs website, with zero independent oversight. I'm surprised this is even in dispute? By what measure is it not an SPS? Void if removed (talk) 10:52, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Would a report by the New York Times, published on the New York Times website, also be self published by that definition? Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:55, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

No, as described on SPS. Void if removed (talk) 11:16, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Could you elaborate please Void if removed? Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:18, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just read the examples of non self-published sources at WP:SPS. Magazines and newspapers with editorial oversight, books, and peer reviewed papers.

Anything where the author (individual or organisation) and publisher are the same is an SPS, and that includes material SPLC writes and publishes itself. And thus should not be used for BLP statements about third parties ever. Void if removed (talk) 11:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Are you claiming the SPLC doesn't have an editorial oversight process? Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Journalists are still typically employed by the paper; news outlets don't do outside reviews either. And in fact, if you look at the SPLC's page for "Combating Anti-LGBTQ+ Pseudoscience", which (one of?) the SPLC source you object to is a chapter of, you can see it is edited: by R.G. Cravens, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Political Science at the California Polytechnic State University. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 11:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Again, I don't "object" to the authors, I'm pointing you at the policy on WP:SPS. See WP:USESPS for more. Please stop trying to argue that journalistic sources are SPS.

https://www.splcenter.org/presscenter/splc-report-exposes-network-behind-junk-science-and-disinformation-campaign-against

Just FYI, and not that this is the point, Cravens is a senior analyst at the SPLC. Void if removed (talk) 13:52, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I did mention (if you read up) that we should attribute the sources and move them to a Reactions header in the body as per wikipedia guidelines. But you can see my full suggestion and rationale at the bottom for improvements to the lead. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 16:27, 21 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am not arguing that journalistic sources are SPS. I am saying that, by the criterion you seem to be applying, they would be. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 14:16, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is not "my criterion", I'm literally copying what's on WP:SPS and WP:USESPS. Your counter example is non responsive because those pages explicitly say news media are not SPS, nor are third party published books and journals.

This SPLC report is primary, it is not independent, and it is written and published by the same people, which is the only criterion something needs to meet to be a SPS. It is announced as an SPLC report by SPLC researchers. None of that means it isn't an RS, but per WP:BLPSPS it should be nowhere near BLP claims, let alone the unattributed ones here.

At this point you need to go read the pages I've linked to, and demonstrate by what criterion this is not a SPS. Void if removed (talk) 15:40, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have read them. To make it even clearer for you:

1. If "written and published by the same people" meant "written and published by people within the same organization", newspapers and magazines would be considered self-published.
2. They are not.
3. Ergo, your interpretation is incorrect.

-- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 15:45, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think this goes beyond simply a case of an isolated content dispute, because the current state of this page is being used repeatedly to make wider points elsewhere on the site, eg. arguing MEDRS are actually FRINGE on other pages. Void if removed (talk) 21:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

That's a pretty serious accusation, Void. Do you want to take it to AE or AN instead of arguing it on an article talk page, which is not the appropriate place to make accusations of conduct issues? Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I was thinking that was an observation more than an accusation? What we have is a few pages that are kind of niche and controversial, but the local consensus on them is spilling over into (IMO) more significant topics. There seems to be no single place to settle these disputes, and it is very hard to find the starting point because, to me at least, the logic appears circular. Do you think that is a conduct issue? Void if removed (talk) 11:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The place to settle a dispute on the appropriateness of a source would be either the article talk page where the source is used, or WP:RSN if a consensus could not be reached on said talk page. Not the talk page of the source in question. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

To explain my dilemma: over on that page it is argued that SEGM pushes "conversion therapy". A citation was given to this passage in this article:

In May, 2021, SEGM called for an amendment to the Canadian criminal code C-6, which outlawed conversion therapy, falsely claiming that conversion therapy can only be applied to lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as opposed to transgender people as well. This position is not supported by any major medical organization, which define conversion therapy as including efforts to change sexual orientation or gender identity.

Now that ought to carry no weight, as its Wikipedia, but in any case I come here and check the sources. What AJ Eckert actually says is:

SEGM has called for amending the criminal code outlawing conversion therapy. Though conversion therapy involves any effort to change sexual orientation and/or gender identity, SEGM President Dr. Roberto D’Angelo justifies SEGM’s opposition by mistakenly claiming that conversion therapy can only be applied to LGB people. This idea is not supported by any major medical organization.

This isn't quite the same. And when I look, what SEGM's submission actually says is:

In young people, gender dysphoria arises from a wide range of causes, often in complex developmental and family contexts (Churcher Clarke & Spiliadis, 2019; D’Angelo, 2020). Should Bill C-6 pass as written, it will effectively make it illegal to consider the role of developmental, family, and mental health issues in generating or contributing to a young person’s gender dysphoria. There is a very real risk that all forms of supportive and explorative psychotherapies for young patients who present with gender dysphoria will be classified as “conversion”.

Its also not quite as described. An alternative formulation of this paragraph to my mind would be:

In 2021, SEGM made a submission regarding Canadian Bill C-6, which intended to outlaw sexual orientation and gender identity conversion therapy, arguing that the legislation risked classifying "all forms of supportive and explorative psychotherapies for young patients who present with gender dysphoria" as conversion therapy. Writing in Science-based Medicine, clinician AJ Eckert stated this was based on a mistaken and unsupported belief that "conversion therapy can only be applied to LGB people".

I think that is pretty neutral and balanced.

I don't particularly want to spend my time debating this over here and I would like to focus on other pages that are more interesting to me. But I'm finding that difficult, because strong claims made on this page with weak sources are spilling over. Void if removed (talk) 12:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

We don't resort to interpreting primary sources ourselves when we think the secondary coverage isn't "neutral and balanced" enough. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 13:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Firstly, I'd ask you to revert (as we are discussing this on the talk page as of this comment).

Secondly clearly Eckert is referencing the part of SEGM's submission where they state "“Conversion therapy” refers to an ideological and, historically, religiously-motivated effort to “convert” lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals to become heterosexual."

This clearly denies GICE as part of conversion therapy as Eckert states, and seems to support our original text easily.

I'm really not sure how you missed this as Eckert does link to it in his article.

I also echo MFC's concern. LunaHasArrived (talk) 13:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

This idea is not supported by any major medical organization. seems like a major omission to leave out, given that it's like, half their point. This would not be an appropriate use of ABOUTSELF in my opinion. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I condensed that down to "unsupported" but "not supported by any major medical organization" would work too.

A WP:PRIMARY source like the original submission is "generally the best source for its own contents, even over a summary of the primary source elsewhere". It is absolutely fine to present the basics of what it actually says (date of submission, bill, author, brief quote) with no analysis, alongside the critique and analysis from Eckert.

I also think that without the coverage from SBM, I think trying to include material from primary sources like this would not be WP:DUE, but since it is there, I think it is. Void if removed (talk) 14:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I strongly disagree giving equal or higher weight to a primary source is DUE. Alpha3031 (t • c) 20:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've changed falsely claiming to based on the mistaken claim and made a few other changes for concision. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:35, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've taken out the date and the reference to Bill C6, as these aren't in the SBM source. If those details are necessary, will need to cite the primary source. I don't think it makes a significant difference.

Next, this paragraph:

Malone and fellow SEGM member Colin Wright asserted in a September 2019 Quillette article that counselling can address "any trauma or thought processes that have caused them" to identify as transgender. The American Academy of Pediatrics have said that "conversion" or "reparative" treatment models such as this have been used to deter children and adolescents from displaying non-cisgender gender identities and gender expressions. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration has said that any therapeutic interventions that seek to change a child or adolescent's gender identity or gender expression are inappropriate and may cause harm.

This juxtaposes statements by Malone and Wright with some information about conversion therapy, strongly implying that they are advocating that.

This is justified because they are mentioned in the SBM source, however, the whole section referencing these starts "In my opinion".

Here's what the source says:

Dr. Malone and fellow SEGM member Dr. Colin Wright have asserted, “Counseling can help gender dysphoric adolescents resolve any trauma or thought processes that have caused them to desire an opposite sexed body.” In my opinion, these statements are transphobic and reductive and favor a model of care in which children are encouraged to live as their sex assigned at birth. As the American Academy of Pediatrics notes, “conversion” or “reparative” treatment models are used to prevent children and adolescents from identifying as transgender or to dissuade them from exhibiting gender-diverse expressions. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration has concluded that any therapeutic intervention with the goal of changing a youth’s gender expression or identity is inappropriate. Reparative approaches have been proven to be not only unsuccessful but also deleterious and are considered outside the mainstream of traditional medical practice.”

• Nothing after "In my opinion" belongs in this page.
• The quote is misrepresented, and should be presented in its entirety ("desire an opposite sexed body", not editorialised to identify as transgender)
• We cannot include the information that it was September 2019 or in Quillette, without citing that source.

Void if removed (talk) 08:24, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Also, I'm disputing cannot include the information that it was September 2019 or in Quillette, Void, and will be restoring it (without attribution) and with attribution the rest of the content originally from that section. Since the SBM article links to the Quillette article, it it a sufficiently clear indication that said Quillette article is the one being referred to. I would urge editors to consider not immediately removing content unless actually WP:CHALLENGEing the verifiablity of a statement, and to consider tagging with {{cn}} instead if said content is likely to be actually verifiable. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Alpha3031 If you want to include that, the simple solution is to just add a citation to the Quillette piece. Without that it is unsourced information that isn't explicitly stated in the source. If you add that citation, there's no problem, and I can't see an argument against doing so. Void if removed (talk) 07:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

"In my opinion" here simply marks the following claim, that Malone and Wright's statements are transphobic etc., as the author's own, as opposed to the material before and after, which is borrowed from other sources. I don't see how an author writing "in my opinion" means we disregard the rest of the paragraph. No objections to your last two points. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 08:58, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Because the entire rest of the paragraph depends on the author's opinion that the statements "favor a model of care in which children are encouraged to live as their sex assigned at birth". This is what is connected to the material on conversion/reparative therapy. Paraphrasing:

- In my opinion, this is encouraging children to live as their sex assigned at birth, which is reparative therapy etc etc

Without that first opinion, there's no connection between the quote, and the subsequent text. Void if removed (talk) 09:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I disagree that "in my opinion" makes a statement unusable for Wikipedia. What is the substantial difference between these statements?

In my opinion, these statements are transphobic and reductive and favor a model of care in which children are encouraged to live as their sex assigned at birth.

These statements are transphobic and reductive and favor a model of care in which children are encouraged to live as their sex assigned at birth.

Both present the author's analysis. One calls attention to that fact, while the other leaves it implicit in the fact that they wrote it. Obviously Wikipedia does not only cite sources that are Presenting the Objective Truth. Truth, for us, does not exist outside the learned opinions of reliable sources. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 09:18, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The difference is that one is WP:RSOPINION and needs to be attributed, and the other does not.

And that AJ Eckert personally thinks this statement sounds a bit like reparative therapy diminishes this section substantially, and the fact that Eckert is a board member of USPATH and not an independent source becomes highly relevant. Void if removed (talk) 09:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

WP:RSOPINION is about sources that "may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact", and mentions opinion pieces as an example. WP:SBM is considered a generally reliable source, so this consideration does not apply. As for "personally thinks this statement sounds a bit like", "I used belittling language about the source" is not a policy-based argument. And that an expert is part of an expert organization is really not surprising to me. "Independent source" doesn't really mean anything here either. The way NPOV works is to represent the opinions of reliable sources with dues weight, not to "counterbalance" sources' perceived biases due to their affiliations. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 09:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

What I mean is - this section is not presented as fact within the source itself, therefore it shouldn't be considered a statement of fact here, that would be improper. Most material in this source can be treated as factual, per WP:SBM - but here, we have a section within this WP:RS, where the author explicitly states their own opinion. It is not presented as fact, it is provisoed as opinion. We aren't talking about the source as a whole, but a specific section within the source.

And by WP:INDEPENDENT it is materially relevant that SEGM and USPATH are on opposing sides of litigation in the US. That does not mean it isn't due or relevant - but it isn't independent: Interest in a topic becomes vested when the source (the author, the publisher, etc.) develops any financial or legal relationship to the topic. Void if removed (talk) 10:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The transphobic and reductive bit is clearly opinion, but I don't see how the following sentence can be the author's opinion, given it's clearly attributed to another organisation. There is no explicit "The rest of this is not my opinion any more", but they likely did not see a need to given the attribution. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:58, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The subsequent statements are indeed all statements of fact that can theoretically be included in an article unattributed, but the crucial part is the sentence that connects these statements to the previous quote in this particular context is opinion.

So for example, if we wanted to state in an article generally what the APA thought about conversion therapy, we could cite this source.

But that isn't what's happening. Here, the article is juxtaposing the APA's position on conversion therapy with the quote from Wright and Malone - indeed placing this quote in a section titled "conversion therapy" - based on a statement of opinion that this is an appropriate comparison. Placing the material together leads the reader to believe there is a relation. Take out the opinion, and why is any of this here?

We should not be juxtaposing unrelated material like this to create a specific impression in the mind of the reader with a source that only makes this connection via opinion. That requires attribution - and either the non-independence of the source needs to be made very clear at that point or arguably it isn't DUE. And either way, placing this quote under the heading "Conversion therapy" based on opinion is inappropriate. Void if removed (talk) 12:54, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't believe classifying favor a model of care in which children are encouraged to live as their sex assigned at birth as opinion is an appropriate application of WP:VOICE given that that is the literal meaning of the quote from Malone, meaning that even ignoring the secondary source, it can be verified purely from a use of the WP:PRIMARY in compliance with point 3 (can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge). I am, however, open to letting the WP:NORNs decide the fate of that paragraph should consensus not be reached on this. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:24, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

That would be WP:SYNTH, and I'm going to strongly disagree with that interpretation being a neutral one.

The quote as presented is "Counseling can help gender dysphoric adolescents resolve any trauma or thought processes that have caused them to desire an opposite sexed body".

There is a difference between helping to resolve, and encourage. Helping to resolve can be undirected, while encouragement has a preferred destination in mind, and this is a crucial distinction. But Eckert moves a step even further, from "encourage" to "conversion", based on their opinion this is "transphobic".

Also, Eckert elides the first part of that quote, which adds the proviso "But in most cases", further diminishing this interpretation. Rather than a blanket statement, this shifts in context into an observation completely in line with some WP:MEDRS.

This is complicated stuff and all hinges on difference of opinion in WP:MEDRS about how to approach children with gender dysphoria. What Malone and Wright describe in this brief, context-free quote in 2019 is arguably in line with the "exploratory approach" and observations on desistence described in the Cass Review in 2024 - and that is absolutely clear that undirected exploratory psychotherapy not only is not conversion, but that it is harmful to state that it is, at which point there's no way you can justify this doesn't require specialized knowledge to arrive at your interpretation. Void if removed (talk) 13:58, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Presenting being trans as being the result of trauma rather than being something intrinsic, and suggesting that therapy can "resolve" their desire to transition seems like possibly the most unambiguous statement of support for conversion therapy. It was entirely appropriate to describe their words as such.

@void if removed, you should not have deleted this section while this was still being discussed and I urge you to revert HenrikHolen (talk) 15:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

That is your opinion. MEDRS differ.

Cass Review 8.42:

in some individuals, preceding mental ill health (such as anxiety, depression, OCD, eating disorders), may result in uncertainty around gender identity and therefore contribute to a presentation of gender-related distress. In such circumstances, treating the mental health disorder and strengthening an individual’s sense of self may help to address some issues relating to gender identity. For other individuals, gender-related distress may be the primary concern and living with this distress may be the cause of subsequent mental ill health. Alternatively, both sets of conditions may be associated with and influenced by other factors, including experiences of neurodiversity and trauma.

And the issue here is not your opinion, or mine, or even what MEDRS say, but how this source presents it. The source explicitly makes a statement of opinion at this point, so it needs attribution or removal. And attribution needs to make the non-independence clear. Void if removed (talk) 16:01, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Eckert is interpreting a text. That is going to be up for interpretation – a matter of opinion, if you will – regardless of how it is formulated. And that does not mean that we do not use sources that interpret texts to present interpretations of texts. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 16:16, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The references you removed made references to statements of facts within pieces also containing the opinions of the author, which is not unusual. If you felt the references were inadequate, then you could improve them. Removing them as you have done is unnecessary and leaves the article in an incomplete state.

As for your reference to the Cass review, this is also an expression of the views of the author and is not substantiated within the report. Moreover, the Cass review is really not an appropriate source to link to, given the political biases of her report. HenrikHolen (talk) 16:18, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm not getting enough sleep to deal with this. Will be kicking it up to WP:NORN or another ntoiceboard when I get the time to write a statement. Alpha3031 (t • c) 20:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've posted it to both WP:NORN#SEGM and conversion therapy and WP:NPOVN#SEGM and conversion therapy since both noticeboards seem relevant. If FRINGE comes up again I'll post it there too. Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Snokalok if it's not a quote from the subject - and, using this source, it is not - it shouldn't be in quotes, see MOS:SCAREQUOTES and MOS:QUOTEPOV. Based on your edit comment you've reinstated the quotes to convey some alternate meaning other than a plain reading, which is inappropriate. Void if removed (talk) 21:52, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Alright fair enough Snokalok (talk) 01:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Void, I've looked through a few more revisions after my edit, and I have to ask if you're serious in asserting that exploratory therapy (for gender) is a different topic to (gender) exploratory therapy? Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm inclined to agree here. It's plainly obvious that "exploratory psychotherapy" here means GET. That GET has a bad name is SEGM's problem, not ours. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 07:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

No, I think they are the same. However I've argued that point on that page, and editors there disagreed. If you think it is the same as well, then there's a number of relevant sources not being cited over there - notably the Cass Review - so if you want to make that argument here, I'll invite you to make that argument over there with consistency too. I will say that once you argue that exploratory psychotherapy as relates to gender has many synonyms that are clearly the same thing in context, then a wikivoice claim it is "conversion therapy" is untenable.

This is all tangential - my point here is that quoting a term that isn't a quote is inappropriate. Void if removed (talk) 07:49, 21 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Doesn't it seem a bit WP:POINTy to argue for something you don't think yourself, in order to make a point about a discussion on another article? -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 10:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

In response to the questions and concerns raised above, I decided to start a new section on possible improvements to the lead of the SEGM article. My position aligns with others who have expressed concerns about the sourcing. It is important that factual statements are supported by reliable, well-regarded sources, and that opinionated or self-published content be attributed appropriately in a 'reactions' section. Attribution ensures transparency in the presentation of opinions versus facts. The lead should surely also reflect a neutral point of view, grounded in what unbiased, reliable sources report.

Currently, we have several statements that could benefit from clearer attribution, moved from the lead to a section in the body entitled: "Reactions" in line with Wikipedia guidelines:

'The group routinely cites the unproven concept of rapid-onset gender dysphoria and mistakenly claimed that conversion therapy techniques are only practiced on the basis of sexual orientation rather than gender identity.'

This is referenced to AJ Eckert, a leader within WPATH, but lacks explicit attribution in the article. As this is opinion-based, it should be clearly noted as such.

'SEGM is often cited in anti-transgender legislation and court cases, sometimes filing court briefs.'

This is also presented as a fact but is based on Eckert's view. Without clear attribution, it could mislead readers into thinking this is a consensus position.

'It is not recognized as a scientific organization by the international medical community.'

This statement cites The Advocate, WyoFile, and Medscape. However, I couldn't find supporting evidence in Medscape. Adding clearer citations or revisiting the source would be helpful.

The next two lines are from other WPATH members:

'Researchers at the Yale School of Medicine issued a report which described SEGM as a small group of anti-trans activists.'

This is referenced in Vice (which is not recognized as reliable at RSPSS) and a primary Yale document. Vice may not be the most appropriate source for factual statements. Further, the primary Yale document is authored by WPATH-affiliated members, raising concerns about neutrality.

'Joshua Safer, a spokesperson for the Endocrine Society, described them as outside the medical mainstream.'

This quote is from Medscape, and it’s important to note that Safer serves on the Standards of Care revision committee for WPATH. Given his role in developing the SOC, this could present a conflict of interest. Similarly, there are issues regarding attribution with AJ Eckert, who is referenced multiple times (at least seven) throughout the article without clear attribution. For instance, the Science-Based Medicine article [28]used as a reference appears to be Eckert’s reaction to NICE (The National Institute of Health and Care Excellence) findings reported in this BBC article. [29] It seems that Eckert is questioning the findings of the UK authorities while criticizing his opponents, which is his personal view rather than a consensus position. Since the UK authorities did not agree with Eckert's assessment, and that its not a representation of common consensus, it would be more appropriate to attribute his perspective to him directly rather than presenting it as fact. Overall, the article reads as a criticism article rather than objective reporting. In accordance with Wiki rules, the lead should be written from the neutral point of view, without citing any biased or opinionated sources. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 16:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

As I understand, we had a consensus to move Eckert from the lead to another part of the article. JonJ937 (talk) 10:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

JonJ937, how did you find this consensus you're speaking of? I cannot for the life of me find the discussion that you're referring to, so would you so kindly point it out for me?

Also, I see that Sean, you have stated that The group routinely cites the unproven concept of rapid-onset gender dysphoria and mistakenly claimed that conversion therapy techniques are only practiced on the basis of sexual orientation rather than gender identity. is an opinion. I cannot see how that is correct. RoxySaunders has state earlier here that:

Eckert's "opinion" here appears to be a statement of fact about SEGM's position that,

Using the term “conversion therapy” in the context of gender dysphoria is not only misleading but also inaccurate. “Conversion therapy” refers to an ideological and, historically, religiously-motivated effort to “convert” lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals to become heterosexual. [...] To suggest that this practice is being applied to gender-questioning youth is erroneous and will only serve to further inflame the already highly politicized field of transgender medicine.

To break things down: The fact that the group "routinely cites the concept" is a factual statement, and is clearly so by the text of the statement. Citation counts are not a matter of opinion, something like Issac Newton is frequently (or rarely) cited in the field of physics is not a opinion. It is a statement of fact. It might be an incorrect statement of fact, but it is up to you to demonstrate, with an equal or higher quality source, that this is a fact that is seriously contested. Same goes for unproven concept of rapid-onset gender dysphoria and mistakenly and claimed conversion therapy techniques are only practiced on the basis of sexual orientation rather than gender identity. Every single one of these is based on a specific, factual assertion. (the fact that the claims are mistaken rather than intentional might be the only thing that could be considered an opinion here, but I'd consider it analysis instead)

It is not appropriate to attribute the passage. Alpha3031 (t • c) 20:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

If you check the discussion above, in the section titled "Caraballo", you can see that multiple editors were in favor of removing Eckert's opinion from the lead. In particular, Firefangledfeathers was not in favor of mentioning it in the lead in wikivoice or not. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist also agreed to remove it from there and as I understand Void if removed was also Ok with it. There were no objections to removal.

Eckert's opinion is just his opinion, not a statement of fact. As Sean Waltz O'Connell mentioned above, it was Eckert's attempt to challenge NICE research. The UK health authorities not only did not agree with Eckert, but doubled down on their position by publishing Cass report soon after. So Eckert's opinion does nor represent scholarly consensus, it is just his point of view. According to WP:RS/AC:

A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources.

This is exactly the situation that we have here. We cannot present the opinion of one individual author as a consensus view and considering Eckert's obvious bias due to his involvement with WPATH, his opinion's cannot be used for statements of facts. We can only present his statements as his personal opinion JonJ937 (talk) 16:01, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

JonJ937, you say Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist also agreed to remove it. I believe the relevant quote from YFNS would be I'd be fine removing it from the lead in place of [emphasis mine] something more to the point like SEGM has lobbied to remove protections for transgender people in conversion therapy bans. This is, to me, quite clear in indication an opinion that removal is acceptable only under the condition it is replaced with something more to the point. Your edit did not replace your removal with anything, so to claim YFNS agreed to it is in my opinion a serious misrepresentation. Please strike. Alpha3031 (t • c) 21:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Indeed, YFNS agreed to remove it under a certain condition, but even without YFNS, there appeared to be a sufficient consensus for not citing Eckert's opinion in the lead. We are not talking about complete removal, I just moved Eckert down to another section, with proper attribution of his opinion. An opinion of a person with an obvious bias needs to be properly attributed. Otherwise, we might as well call this article "WPATH's opinion about SEGM". The intro cites a whole bunch of WPATH members for no apparent reason, and no third party sources have been used. Eckert, Safer and Yale group are all WPATH. That is not in line with WP:NPOV. JonJ937 (talk) 09:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'll be honest, loudly exclaiming at every opportunity that "all the people (in the article) that disagree with this organisations are from WPATH, such injustice, so very disproportionate" has, to me, the same airs as saying, when writing an article about an organisation advocating an unusual legal theory, "all of the critics of this organisation are from bar associations" or maybe some boring academic subject and "all of the people disputing this work at universities". Or maybe, the next Stockton Rush, and "all of the people that think the idea is half baked are from commercial submarine companies".

It's a professional association. That means professionals, i.e. people who work in a specified field, well, a lot of them are going to be associated with it. That's in the name. It is, perhaps, indeed a great wrong that people who work in the stupid field are so sensitive that they can't take a teensy bit of perfectly sensible criticism without attacking their critics. Not up to Wikipedia to decide that, however. If you're unhappy that people who are commenting on theses things just happen to be WPATH members (how awfully suspicious), then you are more than welcome to take it to WP:FRINGEN or WP:RSN to get the lot of them canned. Otherwise, I will suggest, quite bluntly, that you should find another line of argument. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate the engagement on this topic, but I believe the distinction between fact and opinion is being blurred here, especially in the context of AJ Eckert's critiques of SEGM.

Eckert’s Critique Is an Opinion, Not a Fact:

(a) The statement that SEGM 'routinely cites the unproven concept of rapid-onset gender dysphoria and mistakenly claimed that conversion therapy techniques are only practiced on the basis of sexual orientation rather than gender identity' is not a neutral, verifiable fact. It reflects Eckert’s critical assessment of SEGM’s positions. The characterization of ROGD as 'unproven', in the lead context ignores the fact that this is an ongoing medical debate and under study, and frames it rather as a discredited claim, furthermore, the assertion that SEGM’s claims are 'mistaken' are clearly subjective interpretations, not uncontested facts. These need to be attributed to Eckert to maintain neutrality.

(b) It’s important to note that the routine citation of a concept does not inherently validate its truth. SEGM’s frequent reference to ROGD does not make ROGD a fact; rather, it underscores their advocacy of a theory that remains highly contested in the medical community. Eckert’s view that SEGM's stance is mistaken is an evaluative opinion, not an objective truth. It is crucial that we recognize this distinction when framing statements in the lead.

Objective Statements versus Subjective Evaluations:

(a) In any academic or legal setting, a statement of fact must be verifiable, neutral, and not subject to interpretation. Eckert’s critique of SEGM is a subjective evaluation of their position on conversion therapy and ROGD. His use of terms like 'unproven' and 'mistakenly' inherently involve judgment. While Eckert is entitled to his opinion, it should not be presented in Wikipedia’s voice as an established fact. It must be attributed to him directly to reflect the ongoing debate and disagreement within the medical field.

(b) This parallels the treatment of contested academic theories. For instance, in scholarly debates, attributing positions to specific experts ensures transparency about the subjective nature of their claims, especially in contentious areas. Just as one scholar’s critique of a theory is not presented as fact without attribution, Eckert’s critique must be clearly attributed as his view, not presented as an uncontested fact.

Conflict of Interest and Neutrality Concerns:

Eckert’s involvement as a WPATH leader introduces the possibility of bias, as his organization directly opposes SEGM’s stance. This further underscores the need for attribution. Without clear attribution, presenting these critiques as facts risks giving undue weight to a single perspective, violating Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy. The critique that SEGM misuses the term 'conversion therapy' must be attributed to Eckert to avoid presenting a subjective analysis as an objective truth.

Misleading Framing of 'Routine Citation':

You assert that SEGM’s 'routine citation' of ROGD is a factual statement. However, citation frequency alone does not establish the truth of the concept. The fact that SEGM cites ROGD regularly reflects their advocacy, but the contested nature of ROGD within the medical community makes it essential to clarify that this is a theory under debate, not an established fact. Eckert’s view that ROGD is 'unproven' must be attributed to him to avoid giving the impression that this is a universally accepted conclusion. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 16:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Eckert’s critique must be clearly attributed as his view, not presented as an uncontested fact.

Easy way to get around that Sean Waltz O'Connell. Find an RS that explicitly contests it, then we can attribute and indicate the relative prominence of the two. Until then, it is OR to suggest that it is seriously contested in the RS. Also, I do not appreciate 500 words of ChatGPT spam. If you have to use AI to make your arguments, please ask it to be more concise next time. Thanks. Alpha3031 (t • c) 20:45, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The length and detail of my response are in line with legal analysis since I am a lawyer. It may seem artificial to one not oriented with this sort of analysis, however my response was deliberate and intended to address all points comprehensively in line with Wikipedia's commitment to neutrality and thoroughness. If responding fully requires a more extensive reply, then that’s simply part of building a complete and accurate record. If it’s more than you care to engage with, that’s your choice, but I’d prefer we focus on specific critiques of my points rather than attempting to discredit them as artificially generated. Furthermore, in line with the parallels between legal reasoning and Wikipedia function, this point of yours introduces a reverse onus/ burden of proof: "Easy way to get around that Sean Waltz O'Connell. Find an RS that explicitly contests it, then we can attribute and indicate the relative prominence of the two. Until then, it is OR to suggest that it is seriously contested in the RS." - This is incorrect. In fact, you need to provide multiple reliable sources to solidify it as a matter of fact, and to state this in a wiki voice, as well as avoid attribution. Eckert is one individual and if you take the time to read my above lengthy post, I have given multiple grounded assertions as to why it is purely "his opinion" being reported. I believe WP:REDFLAG applies here -Which focuses on: Challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest. Clearly this is the situation we have due to a clear conflict of interest. We need to obey the rules of Wikipedia and not just cherry-pick when it suits us. Accordingly WP:INDY highlights that articles must be based on independent sources, and that is evidently not the case with SEGM article. According to this, Eckert displays a clear "negative interest". Biased sources can be used too, but with attribution, and cannot be used to define the perspective nor tone of the opening text of the article, as this creates a distortion, rather than an independent analysis - As per WP:BIASED Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 09:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Raladic you have invoked WP:MANDY to remove a response that is given significant coverage in the source. Coverage of SEGM in this source is 5 paragraphs, 2 of which are Malone's response.

WP:MANDY says:

Editors are often tempted to close these sections with denials in the form of "X denies the allegations", based either on the subject's own self-published source or on a press release repeated in a newspaper story.

MANDY is an essay, not a policy, and even then neither of these is the case. This is not self-published or a press release, but an invited response from VICE. By balance of coverage in the source (2/5), some part of Malone's quotation or response is obviously WP:DUE.

But lets look at the balance of coverage in the page as it stands.

In August 2022, Vice News characterized William Malone as an "anti-trans activist" and stated that SEGM use the same tactics and citations as a Florida Department of Health memo, which claimed to provide a scientific basis for banning gender-affirming care and had been criticized by USPATH, a regional chapter of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health. Vice reached out to authors cited in the memo, who said it took their research out of context as the research, and later research, supported gender-affirming care.

About two thirds of this is describing a Florida memo that hyperlinked one word to a commentary piece co-authored by Will Malone. The memo has nothing to do with this page, but we have to expend an inordinate amount of space explaining what this memo even was in order to contextualise Vice's description of Malone. Then there's a whole sentence devoted to other people cited in this memo - why? What does Vice reached out to authors cited in the memo, who said it took their research out of context as the research, and later research, supported gender-affirming care have to do with SEGM? This is WP:COATRACK stuff.

Of the five paragraphs from this source actually about the subject of this article we have selected:

• An accusation (which appears to be based on the Yale Report, but the Yale report doesn't say this, so it is clear misrepresentation)
• Weasel words about "several of the same tactics and citations"
• An overlong description of a memo so the accusation and weasel words have something to relate to
• A lengthy defence of other people cited in the memo and platforming of their POV, despite it having nothing to do with the subject
• Ignoring what the source describes as Malone's "refutation" which is 2/5 of the original text

Note the source also uses weasel words like "signal boosted" and also calls Carl Heneghan an anti-vaccine activist - do you think this source would be appropriate to add the following sentence to that Wikipedia page:

In August 2022, Vice News characterized Carl Heneghan as an "anti-vaccine activist"

No, because it would violate WP:BLPGOSSIP, WP:BLPSTYLE and WP:BLPBALANCE. Why is this different?

This is a source (WP:VICE) about which despite some 16 discussions at RSP there is no consensus about reliability, and past concerns about use for BLP claims. I'm starting to think using this source for a BLP claim about Malone is questionable, and the WP:WEASEL words make using it for claims about SEGM questionable too. Void if removed (talk) 10:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Mandy was with regards to this sentence you added: In a response to Vice, Malone refuted that SEGM is transphobic. Given that the article here based on multitude of RS makes it very clear that SEGM is anti-trans, this response sentence is redundant, because, well of course they'd deny it, so it doesn't serve our readership as it is self-evident.

As for the other part, you removed the actual crux of what was criticized being ", which claimed to provide a scientific basis for banning gender-affirming care", so I simply re-instated it, as it is the core of the paragraph.

I don't know why you're bringing in other stuff, the relevant for this specific change that you made and I partially re-instated is based on this paragraph in the cited ref - In addition to distorting good science, the memo put out by Redfern’s department also includes citations to work by anti-trans activists. One of them is Dr. William J. Malone, an Idaho-based physician and co-founder of the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine (SEGM), .... But the organization uses several of the same tactics—and the same citations—as Florida’s memo.

This isn't one word, and emphasis on the bolded sentence, that is the crux of what that paragraph is important for as it links SEGM and what the organization does, not just Malone alone. Raladic (talk) 15:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Given that the article here

This is circular, and we're talking in the first part about a BLP claim, attributed or not.

this response sentence is redundant

That is your opinion. The source, however, gives over 2/5 of their entire coverage of Malone to this response. This isn't a typical WP:MANDY where denials etc are pulled in separately from a WP:SPS or minimally included in the source from a press release. It is roughly balanced in the source, so it should be roughly balanced here.

it is the core of the paragraph.

The point being, it is not the core of this article. We have to leap over several hurdles just to get to the point we can say why VICE are talking about this.

as it links SEGM and what the organization does

Can you explain what the organization did in this instance, according to this source, that makes discussion of this Florida memo DUE for this page?

The answer is: nothing. What we have is an article about a memo that linked to a dozen or so papers, one of which is a commentary Malone co-authored, and then at some point the author makes a WP:WEASEL worded claim SEGM do things that are similar. So we have to devote multiple sentences to (inadequately) describing this completely unconnected memo that is irrelevant to this article, just so we can justify including a VICE writer's vague half-sentence claim they "use several of the same tactics", with no clue what that even means, what tactics in the memo are being talked about, which ones relate to SEGM, or basically anything at all? And to top it off, there's a line about how all the other authors whose papers were linked decry the memo - why is that there? I repeat, this is WP:COATRACK stuff.

I don't know why you're bringing in other stuff

Because this source is terrible, and the more I look at it the more obviously terrible it is. And also I couldn't resist the weak pun in the topic title. Void if removed (talk) 17:19, 23 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

With respect to Vice, it is important to note that Vice is not recognized as a reliable source per the Reliable Sources Noticeboard (RSPSS). Using such sources to label individuals as 'anti-trans activists' is a clear violation of Wikipedia's Biographies of Living Persons (WP:BLP) policy, which requires that content about living individuals be sourced with particular care. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 16:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

It is listed as "no consensus" rather than as "unreliable" at WP:VICE. I don't see any decision that Vice is unreliable for this sort of attributed claim. People have questioned it and, unless I'm missing something, it never got to a yes-or-no conclusion. We do need to be cautious when talking about living individuals but I think you are overstating the case here. The better question is relevance. How far can we go into this before it stops being about SEBGM and becomes a bit COATRACKy? --DanielRigal (talk) 19:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I believe the Question is: Why is it important to quote Vice's opinion on a BLP issue, considering that there is no consensus on Vice being a reliable source? Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 09:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

WP:MANDY, as an essay (e.g. an opinion, not a policy or guideline) can be rejected or accepted as easily as WP:NOTMANDY, a counter-essay. My opinion is that in many cases, by omitting denials or rebuttals to criticism/accusations, Wikipedia is implicitly framing the views of the accusers/critics as correct or otherwise unchallenged. And from a WP:NPOV perspective, there is a great distinction between solely self-published response/denials and denials that have been included in independent, third-party sources describing conflicts, which I think allows for better evaluation of due weight than the sources (albeit independent and reliable) that are directly engaged in the conflicts or issuing accusations. Per WP:BLPPUBLIC (an actual policy), "If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should be reported too." I agree that this article currently devotes too much emphasis to a tangential Florida memo which merely cites Malone, and I think the text "Vice reached out to authors cited..." falls under the practice of Wikipedians mistaking reporting on a subject with the the subject itself (more extreme examples include excessive WP:PROSELINE, or prose to the effect of "In a July 7, 1995 article published on page 7 of the New York Times by Joe Shmow called "Rain is Wet", Joe Shmow interviewed 17 scientists who said that rain is wet", when all but the last three words are what need to be in an encyclopedia article). Even if Vice's journalistic output is included in this article, meta-explanations of Vice's journalistic practices need not be. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:45, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The removed MANDY response was about the organization SEGM (see above), not the person, so BLPPUBLIC doesn't apply.

The fact that SEGM the organization is primarily known for their anti-trans efforts is well cited.

And while its supporters often try WP:CPOV claiming NPOV means every rebuttal should be included, we do not give WP:FALSEBALANCE to fringe movements. Raladic (talk) 23:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

WP:MANDY is still just an essay, regardless of its popularity (with you, me, or anyone else). It's not a trump card to automatically and categorically remove all denials. And there is a world of difference between WP:FALSEBALANCE and including 1 third-party-sourced sentence out of a hundred, in an article dedicated to a subject (fringe though it may be), that adds depth and nuance to the subject. For instance, a well-sourced statement about the beliefs of Flat Earth or Bigfoot proponents has much more weight in an article on Flat Earth or Bigfoot than say Earth or Ape. If Vice can be reliable for quoting (and thus giving weight to) the views of critics, can it not also be reliable for quoting (and giving weight to) the views of defendants? --Animalparty! (talk) 01:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm not saying it's a trump card to never allow criticism, or that the Vice article couldn't also be used for the statement, I'm asking the question of what does it add encyclopedically to this specific article?

The reception section makes it quite clear that the organization is widely considered a fringe organization by both advocacy and the medical community and of what the organizations motives are, which is why I cited Mandy, because of course they'd deny it in order to appear less-fringe, which is why I invoked falsebalance as it feels redundant to mention/give weight. Raladic (talk) 01:41, 25 October 2024 (UTC)Reply