Talk:Chloe Cole/Archive 1

wow this is slanted
I looked up this girl not knowing anything about her, because the name keeps being mentioned on Twitter. Figured I'd do some research. This information is written so obviously against her it's crazy. The slant is disturbing to say the least, without even knowing her. Very disingenuous. 24.208.23.248 (talk) 17:32, 3 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Chloe Cole has absolutely no notability outside of traveling across the US to support bans on gender-affirming care, therefore, the article is written based on that. How is the article specifically slanted? It consists entirely of factual content. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yep it's stunningly biased. It's amazing how a writer can impute nefarious intent with the slightest twist of a phrase or use of qualifiers. For example:
 * "According to her testimony..." "Chloe claims" "Chloe has said" "
 * Why the ubiquitous tone of skepticism over every detail of her life?
 * Her 'activism' section is uncommonly detailed for someone of her stature. It amounts to a carefully cherry-picked series of incidents (presented with a specious air of objectivity) casting Chloe in a certain light. Lots of guilt-by-association (Proud Boys etc.).
 * Chloe is a contentious, outspoken figure in a heated culture war, who wades into controversial territory that many people find upsetting. It is the job of encyclopedists, however, to broach such topics with some measure of balance, objectivity and poise. I have my doubts about whether contributors such as "TheTransarchist" have any interest in impartiality.
 * It is the job of Twitter users, newspaper columnists and future historians to judge Chloe's character. Not Wikipedia authors. 87.114.99.183 (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I did not introduce the skeptical language. Her activism section is not "cherry-picked" (for a start, that's oxymoronic with "overly-detailed"), but a faithful summary of all the reporting done by reliable sources. She has no notability outside of speaking against transgender healthcare, which she is very notable for. If there are sources we missed, feel free to bring them up here. Being trans does not make one inherently biased, but it's interesting you think so (and it's TheTranarchist fyi). Our job as editors is to faithfully summarize the reliable sources that mention her say, which we have. There is no editorializing on her character, merely factual descriptions of her activities. Twitter users are not a recognized judge of character nor a source for Wikipedia, we will include the views of future historians when they come, and the article is already based off of newspaper columnists. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:50, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I did not introduce the skeptical language. Her activism section is not "cherry-picked" (for a start, that's oxymoronic with "overly-detailed"), but a faithful summary of all the reporting done by reliable sources. She has no notability outside of speaking against transgender healthcare, which she is very notable for. If there are sources we missed, feel free to bring them up here. Being trans does not make one inherently biased, but it's interesting you think so (and it's TheTranarchist fyi). Our job as editors is to faithfully summarize the reliable sources that mention her say, which we have. There is no editorializing on her character, merely factual descriptions of her activities. Twitter users are not a recognized judge of character nor a source for Wikipedia, we will include the views of future historians when they come, and the article is already based off of newspaper columnists. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:50, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Irrelevant activism
"Gender-affirming care is supported by health institutes such as the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Columbia University Irving Medical Center, and the Yale School of Medicine, who have spoken out against such bans. Organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union have also spoken out against such bans."

Why is this included in the article? It's an article about a person, not about gender affirming care. Icanhasgramr (talk) 03:07, 14 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I have removed the paragraph from the article lead. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 01:39, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you think that paragraph could be moved to reception? Many sources comment on the medical groups and human rights groups opposing bills she's actively supported, so it seems worth mentioning. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:03, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Explaining my skepticism about "Cole"
"Chloe Cole" (if that is even her real name) seems incredibly suspicious. All we know about her is her unverified testimony to far-right websites and in state legislatures. Her parents have not confirmed any of it, nor have any classmates or other family members. She claimed to have an Instagram, but where is it? Her first tweet was in October 2022. For a child of her age, this is wildly bizarre. User:Bharel, I hope this explains my motivations. If you have any suggestions for how to improve the article to include this (in my view, warranted) skepticism, please let me know. 99.65.214.73 (talk) 02:51, 13 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I get it. But Wikipedia doesn't run on rumors: everything should be verified with reliable sources. If you think someone's sus, that's a discussion for a platform other than Wikipedia. Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 02:54, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * But the sources in the article aren't reliable! For the most part, they're the far-right websites that have interviewed "Cole" and given credence to her story, as well as outlets like Reuters that should really know better. We can't verify any of this at all. I have my own suspicions, but the article should only say what we can verify: the name she uses and what she claims, as well as what she has done to smear the trans community and take away our care. 99.65.214.73 (talk) 03:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * For the most part this article actually relies on LGBTQ media, progressive media, and some center-left/center-right media, though it often includes that she appeared in right-wing platforms, that is sourced to reliable sources noting she did rather than the unreliable sources themselves. While it's true Reuters coverage was ridiculously un-thorough, and I'll admit to my own heavy skepticism about her story as well, reliable sources do actually tend to take her name and story at face value. I believe one or two state it was her name at birth. Trust me, I read through over 100 articles to write this lol. And Occam's razor suggests her story is true, since regardless of whether she genuinely was not happy with her transition or is an ideological detransitioner, her story could have been weaponized by the far-right all the same, no need for her to fake anything, which would probably have been caught by at least one of the reliable sources by now. If some reliable sources express doubt we'd have no problem including them, and in Reception some doubt over parts of her story is covered slightly, but until a sizeable enough number of them do we have to take her name and some details of her story at face value. In regards to her age and her Instagram account, I don't find it too bizarre, as the account was her personal one from when she was a minor and not particularly noteworthy to explicitly name (and that it "made her trans" is attributed to her rather than said in wikivoice). Also, the right has been searching for the golden goose of a detransitioner who actually transitioned as a minor for ages, so it's unsurprising they found at least one.
 * @Bharel could you please self-revert for the reasons above? I'm sympathetic to the skepticism but the reliable sources as they stand don't warrant it in wikivoice. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:16, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Self revert what may I ask? I have undone my revert right after reverting as I wasn't sure about that one. Bar Harel (talk) 01:03, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Bharel Sorry, to clarify I was referring to the revert of the revert. The original version factually states her name as Chloe Cole, an IP editor changed it say her name is only allegedly Chloe Cole, you reverted then reverted your revert. I appreciate the skepticism but even reliable sources take her name and story at face value so I think we have to as well. I also worry it cheapens the article, as I haven't seen any other article express such skepticism about a public figure's name in wikivoice. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 01:09, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I've tried a couple of times, but I have to manually edit and remove it, as plenty of versions went by. I haven't forgotten but I'll do it and revert the anon user's changes, will just take me a little bit of time. I've been away for a few days unfortunately. Bar Harel (talk) 07:53, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Checked the entire diff, seems to be irrelevant now.
 * Thanks for your support :-) Bar Harel (talk) 05:16, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Bharel No worries, had to patch it manually since some concerns were raised at BLPN, sorry it took me a while to get back to you lol. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 13:25, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Chronology errors
I recently watched a long interview with Cole, in that interview she said that she had had various problems at school and was diagnosed with mild autism at around nine. She continued that she hit puberty relatively early and had all sorts of negative feelings and experiences relating to being female, but had no psychological or counselling help between about 9 and 13, but spent a lot of time on social media and sometime before the age of 13 she became convinced that she had GD and subsequently told her parents. They/she consulted 2 psychologists from the same provider and fairly soon was she diagnosed as gender dysphoric and given medical treatment.

We render this as her being diagnosed as gender dysphoric at aged nine and telling her parents at 13. Ours is accurately what the source used (San Fran Chr- mainly about the lawsuit)  says "that Cole was diagnosed with gender dysphoria at age 9 and was treated at Kaiser clinics in the Bay Area between ages 13 and 17".

The lawsuit ITSELF says: "Chloe began to go through puberty earlier than most of her peers and experienced bullying and teasing by her  pears as  result. She  also  had difficulty at school and trouble with social interaction and learning.  On September 12, 2012, at eight years old, she was diagnosed with Disruptive Behavior Disorder. On November 26, 2013, at nine years old,she had a diagnosis indicating an “encounter for school problem.” On October 9, 2015, she had a diagnosis of ADHD . She received no mental health counseling related to her social and behavioral problems at school and was never diagnosed or treated for autism spectrum disorder, though she had multiple indications of being on the autism spectrum. 

The lawsuit and interview seem to (broadly) match - while our and the San Fran Chronicle put the GD diagnosis at 9 and omit any mention of autism or other problems and don't 'explain' the seeming 4-year gap between diagnosis and seeking treatment.

I appreciate that neither the lawsuit, nor my memory of an interview can be used as WP:RSs but am just alerting others to what is possibly a significant error in the San Fran Chronicle's 'timings'. Pincrete (talk) 11:41, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

What Cole opposes
In quite a number of cases, the soutce is explicit that Cole has opposed surgery and hormones/puberty blockers specifically for minors - however our article implies that she opposes gender-affirming care in general (or gender-affirming care for minors) without being specific. The distinction is material IMO, although the more partisan sources are sometimes less precise about this. I have amended those instances where I am able to access the source, which is often the local news source. I cannot access all sources because of my location, or other reasons. Just bringing this to other's attention. Pincrete (talk) 14:28, 27 February 2023 (UTC)


 * If you're referring to, I've reverted it. The correct and current umbrella term for the surgical and HRT options that Cole opposes is gender-affirming care. It's no longer referred to as "sex reassignment therapy", "sex reassignment surgery", and definitely not referred to as "chemical therapies". Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:31, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * No I wasn't referring to that change, but it is pertinent. The term I was using was Medical transition, my motive being that whilst the generic term for all recognised treatments relating to 'trans' people is 'gender-affirming care', this includes evaluation, counselling and such like. The opposition expressed by Cole is solely to surgical treatment, puberty blockers and hormone treatments for minors. Also I believe that some of this terminology and the distinctions are less familiar in Europe, where I live. I appreciate that there are sensitivities here, but I'm looking for a way to be precise without being too cumbersome or crass. Pincrete (talk) 21:05, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It appears that Cole is concerned about treatments that are irreversible. Springee (talk) 21:36, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "treatments that are irreversible"? Is there a source that says it or is that just your opinion? She supports banning puberty blockers, the whole point of which is being reversible. –dlthewave ☎ 02:16, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I think my statement is clear. In reading the sources in general it appears that Cole is concerned about irreversible treatments.  Of course a specific source would be required to put that claim into the article. Springee (talk) 02:35, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * dlthewave, I understand that it is not known whether puberty blockers are wholly reversible. There are obvious practical and ethical difficulties in establishing what immediate and long term effects they have. Regardless, Cole has made it clear that she is opposed to surgical treatment, puberty blockers and hormone treatments for minors. That she thinks this because she believes these can cause permanent changes, would simply be a 'personal motive'. Pincrete (talk) 10:45, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:MEDRS disagree, they consistently state the whole point of prescribing puberty blockers is that they can be reversed. Besides, Cole has never seemed concerned about the irreversible effects of the wrong puberty on trans kids. Not prescribing blockers or hormones are not some neutral option, they force trans kids to go through irreversible pubertal changes they explicitly do not want. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 12:49, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Well that isn't what the linked article says - which is presumably MEDRS consistent. Unknown long term effects would be a reasonable summary of what is said there. Medical care doesn't work like that, and nor do people giving 'testimony' as to their own experience. We all except a witness to truthfully record what they know, not to accept responsibility for matters outside their experience. The 'jury' evaluates the balance of competing evidence, in this case that is a mixture of lawmakers and public opinion. Doctors - as far as possible - are expected to do no harm and to treat patients as individuals, not decide which group is statistically more 'oppressed' or 'distressed' and to treat with that consideration uppermost. Whether that was done with adequate care and 'safe-guarding' in Cole's case is pretty suspect. We don't need to pitch Cole - and others like her - against trans people, as though only one group can be humanely served. Pincrete (talk) 07:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)