Talk:Gender dysphoria/Archive 7

trying to get statement about stability accurate
Thank you for explaining what the issue was with the statment I'd quoted. I did not understand your concern, sorry about that. Is this better?

If I leave in the "non-clinic-based populations" I think it is plagiarism, which is a problem, I believe? I.e. the exact quotation is:

In the article, towards the end, what it says is:

So another possible sentence would be to paraphrase something in this paragraph about the unknown percentage of adolescents and adults who might continue to self identify throughout their lives? Is the suggestion I've made more accurate? Or do you propose something else? Thank you. Jdbrook (talk) 16:57, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem I have with this is that self-reported transgender identity or a gender identity that departs from the traditional male-female binary remains unknown seems ambiguous; in context, the author seems to be distinguishing between self-reported transgender identity versus the broader concept of a gender identity that conflicts with a person's original sex assignment. If the self-reported transgender identity does not persist, those who self-report as "transmasculine" or "transgender male" in an early period may simply report as "male" in a later period. That is not what I think our readers would understand by any of the language proposed for the article thus far, based on that source: they are more likely to assume desistance, but I don't get that from the source at all. Newimpartial (talk) 19:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * In the article, the author describes "self-reports" as asking people things like: are you transgender? Rather than doing, in comparison, it seems, a DSM evaluation.  Specifically:
 * (Boldface mine) That is an example of what a self-identified transgender woman would be.  From one of the examples of self-identified groups, which is what is thought to change.  If the self-identification changes, their birth body is not going to change.  So it will be how they feel or live (to non-binary, to male, to something besides female, since their self-identification is changing, and is female in the study).  That is the context for this wording, which comes in the concluding section right afterwards and is quoted above in green.
 * Again, this is about whether someone will self-identify differently, not that they would just say that transgender means something besides what the survey authors state it is--for the example above, for instance, which is part of the paper, that would simply just be not answering what the survey is asking. Thanks! Jdbrook (talk) 05:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * In this medical research, there is no possible difference between "self-reported transgender identity" and "a gender identity that conflicts with a person's original sex assignment", since the former is basically defined as the latter. In other words, even though a trans man may in his day-to-day life present as and identify just as male/a man, in research specifically about gender dysphoria, he is counted as transgender. When the source (a WP:MEDRS-compliant review article by the way) states, The stability of a self-reported transgender identity or a gender identity that departs from the traditional male-female binary among non-clinic-based populations remains unknown and requires further study., it is talking about possible desistance. The "non-clinic-based populations" aspect is crucial however - this seems to be talking about people who do not seek medical treatment, not trans people in general. Crossroads -talk- 05:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Made this edit per the above. Reworded so plagiarism isn't an issue. Crossroads -talk- 05:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you are misreading the secondary study. While it may be true that some of the primary studies it discusses are amassing self-reports as in "people self-describing as transgender", the main focus in this passage from the secondary study is on fluidity, as represented in the concluding statement: it will be important to understand the clinical care needs of individuals who do not simply ‘cross’ the gender binary from one end to the other, but are somewhere in-between. To represent this finding with language that implies that what is unknown is the rate of desistance, as in reversion to a gender identity perceived to be in conformity with an individual's sex assignment, would be an utter distortion of what the secondary study is actually saying. To say that the secondary study is defining the unknown object in need of study as the degree of desistance away from trans, nonbinary, and genderqueer identities in general seems inexplicable to me, since the plain emphasis of the study is on people (like myself) who are somewhere in-between.
 * (Also, I have edited the new text for prose style; fortunately it did not carry the heady scent of desistance the way the prior proposal had.) Newimpartial (talk) 05:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The current statement doesn't seem to reflect the source yet. There is no information in the source about whether these people sought clinical attention (some might have).  The result quoted is about how people answer when asked if they are transgender.  This might be in comparison to, for instance, the report of a clinician from case studies of diagnoses, or something else that is used to measure frequency of something.  In this case, self-reports are the basis. To be more concrete: one example given is a survey of adults.  All of them, or none of them, might have sought clinical attention.  One has no idea.  One does not know upon what they base their self-identification.  All one knows is that when people ask "are you transgender" or "do you feel you are a male who was born with a body that is a mismatch", that they reply a certain way. That is why the wording is more about self-identifying in the article, I think.  It's a lack of information. Saying if they sought clinical attention or not is information the source does not report.  Does the following suit?
 * Thanks! Jdbrook (talk) 23:15, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Reflecting Crossroads's earlier point, I have replaced the initial phrase with ("Outside of a clinical setting"). The stability of transgender identities within clinical settings is known, to some extent, so the exclusion seems appropriate. On the other hand, I don't think the term self-reported should be made to do more work in the WP article than it does in the secondary study, which frankly is not much. The secondary study - at least in the section relevant here - is much more interested in the data gap about the persistence of non-binary versus genderfluid versus transgender identities than it is about the persistence of self-reported transgender identities as such, so it would be a misuse of the secondary study to emphasize this latter point IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 23:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. The sentence "Outside of a clinical setting, the stability of transgender or non-binary identities is unknown.[54]" could imply that inside a clinical setting, it is different. Do you have a reference for that case? The original statement just said these were non-clinical populations (i.e. not picked based upon whether they were in a clinic).  The original in the abstract is:
 * and in the text there is the statement
 * How about:
 * I think self-reported limits the statement somewhat, and is in the abstract, although the text just says more generally it is a question. Thanks! Jdbrook (talk) 00:15, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think "Outside of a clinical setting" is better English than "In non-clinic based populations" while meaning the same thing. I have already stated why I do not find the limitation of "self-reported" to be helpful in this context. Newimpartial (talk) 00:19, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you. It is in a section about self-reported gender identity.  The section starts with:
 * The statement as it is now is not quoting the paper, which again says both in the abstract (repeating from above):
 * and
 * "In non-clinic based populations" is telling you which group of people you are looking at. It's a group that you didn't ask this question of (in a clinic).  "Outside of a clinical setting, the stability of transgender or non-binary identities is unknown.[54]" seems it could be read as claiming that stability depends on whether you are in a clinical setting (maybe there is evidence that it does or doesn't)?  Or something else, rather than what the original source says.  For this reason, seems me to that the meaning has gotten changed from the source in this rewriting. Thank you. Jdbrook (talk) 14:05, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think "Outside of a clinical setting" is better English than "In non-clinic based populations" while meaning the same thing. I have already stated why I do not find the limitation of "self-reported" to be helpful in this context. Newimpartial (talk) 00:19, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you. It is in a section about self-reported gender identity.  The section starts with:
 * The statement as it is now is not quoting the paper, which again says both in the abstract (repeating from above):
 * and
 * "In non-clinic based populations" is telling you which group of people you are looking at. It's a group that you didn't ask this question of (in a clinic).  "Outside of a clinical setting, the stability of transgender or non-binary identities is unknown.[54]" seems it could be read as claiming that stability depends on whether you are in a clinical setting (maybe there is evidence that it does or doesn't)?  Or something else, rather than what the original source says.  For this reason, seems me to that the meaning has gotten changed from the source in this rewriting. Thank you. Jdbrook (talk) 14:05, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * and
 * "In non-clinic based populations" is telling you which group of people you are looking at. It's a group that you didn't ask this question of (in a clinic).  "Outside of a clinical setting, the stability of transgender or non-binary identities is unknown.[54]" seems it could be read as claiming that stability depends on whether you are in a clinical setting (maybe there is evidence that it does or doesn't)?  Or something else, rather than what the original source says.  For this reason, seems me to that the meaning has gotten changed from the source in this rewriting. Thank you. Jdbrook (talk) 14:05, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "In non-clinic based populations" is telling you which group of people you are looking at. It's a group that you didn't ask this question of (in a clinic).  "Outside of a clinical setting, the stability of transgender or non-binary identities is unknown.[54]" seems it could be read as claiming that stability depends on whether you are in a clinical setting (maybe there is evidence that it does or doesn't)?  Or something else, rather than what the original source says.  For this reason, seems me to that the meaning has gotten changed from the source in this rewriting. Thank you. Jdbrook (talk) 14:05, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

At this point, I'm not sure what to tell you. "Outside of a clinical setting" quite obviously describes where measurement occurs, not where behaviour occurs - it isn't that people behave differently "outside of a clinical setting", it is that the identities in question have not been sufficiently measured "outside of a clinical setting", so therefore their persistence is unknown. And the point is never to quote the paper, it is to convey accurately the point made in the paper. I don't see how adding "self-reported" to the sentence in the WP article would help the reader, since the discussion in the source is about the stability of identities rather than the stability of the self-reporting, which is after all only a measure of the identities. The paper is not suggesting, e.g., that other measures would be more (or less) stable and that self-report methodology is the problem. So adding "self-reported" to our text would just muddy the waters, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 14:17, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. What does "outside a clinical setting" modify?  Can you rewrite the sentence to make it clearer?  The point of the sentence in the source, as I read it is that these self-reported gender identities do not have a known stability.  One doesn't know if they change into other self-reported gender identities over time.   I don't see your sentence conveying this.   Thank you.  Jdbrook (talk) 14:50, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "Outside of a clinical setting" specifies the domain within which the stability of transgender identities has (not) been observed, and is therefore unknown. This is literally what the sentence says. I am not sure what I can do to help. It says that the stability of these identities is unknown, which is exactly what the source says. Newimpartial (talk) 14:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

question about reference removal
, can you please explain why you removed:

It is a more recent (2018) summary of the state of field than the references you cite (and it might be that the consensus has changed). If the earlier references do state there is a clear consensus, can you please show me where? Thank you! Jdbrook (talk) 15:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Relevant medical organizations like APA, WPATH and the Endocrine Society agree that HRT may be appropriate for some adolescents. They have not changed their positions. The source bases their statement on a paper which talks about consensus among practitioners while noting consensus from relevant orgs in supporting HRT. Rab V (talk) 16:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This quotation does not say that "hormonal treatment is not appropriate for some adolescents." The quotation from the review says there is no clear consensus. The review authors base their statement on a paper which says in the abstract "However, in actual practice, no consensus exists whether to use these early medical interventions."  This review is not talking about whether it might be appropriate "for some adolescents" (the authors of this quoted paper did what is considered the best study of adolescent treatment currently available, creating the Dutch Protocol).
 * Thanks! Jdbrook (talk) 23:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, the quotation given is backed up a citation to this paper and doesn't add any value or expertise to it. Newimpartial (talk) 23:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, yes, I think we agree. The review is stating exactly what the reference it cites claims in the abstract.  It is called:  "Early Medical Treatment of Children and Adolescents With Gender Dysphoria: An Empirical Ethical Study" and addresses the concerns being brought up in this discussion:
 * and they describe what they did as a:
 * It directly addresses WPATH and the Endocrine Society, the worries pointed out earlier. So it seems it is more accurate to say "For adolescents, due to the unavailability of long term data, there is in practice "no clear consensus regarding hormonal treatment"  I think I am now agreeing with both of you? Thanks for your patience! Jdbrook (talk) 00:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * But the study they are relying on looks like a PRIMARY piece of qualitative research. The authors of the secondary study simply cite it without adding value to it, AFAICT. Newimpartial (talk) 01:29, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly, it is a secondary source--from WP:MEDRS:
 * A review puts the primary literature in broader context. For the quotation here, the context is long, but the lack of consensus is part of the lack of understanding that the article is highlighting:
 * A review puts the primary literature in broader context. For the quotation here, the context is long, but the lack of consensus is part of the lack of understanding that the article is highlighting:




 * That is, little is known about this age group: how many persist, many seem to have other problems, maybe those should be treated first, and there is worry about media influences, so that more empirical research is need to create treatment approaches... etc. And as part of this, the lack of consensus in how to treat them is present (italics mine). Thanks!  Jdbrook (talk) 04:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If the MEDRS review is thought to contradict other sources, WP:INTEXT of its POV could be used. "Adding value" as claimed above is not a requirement for a review article, whatever that would even mean. "Expertise" comes in via the authors themselves and their writing of the review. Crossroads -talk- 06:21, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * But the review simply cites the previous study and moves on, without providing any discussion or actual SECONDARY analysis, like contrasting its findings with other perspectives or evaluating its methodology. So what does the review contribute to the inclusion of this factoid in the article? Newimpartial (talk) 13:28, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It sounds as if you are asking why the review, the secondary source, included a primary source the way it did? Am I understanding your question?  The secondary source is taking the result and placing it in context (quoted at length above).  The primary source is high quality and mentions in the abstract the connection of their work to the guidelines (the last 2 authors in the primary source were key in the very specific and carefully developed Dutch protocol, which is quoted for almost everything when one wants a strong statement about treating young people, including by the Endocrine society guidelines).  So it is an authoritative primary source.  However, as it is primary, it is not necessarily appropriate for Wikipedia, but as it is included in the review (and in this case, in a broader context), its results are now in a reliable secondary source.  The proposed sentence seems to be an accurate description of what is in the (expertly curated) secondary source. Maybe I am not understanding your concern? Would you prefer me to attempt to paraphrase the above 3 sentences, I can try? Thanks! Jdbrook (talk) 23:27, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see any expert curation in that source; I see it citing a methodologically suspect PRIMARY study because apparently the authors couldn't find anything else. What am I missing? Newimpartial (talk) 03:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The review authors are expert (at least the lead one is), so the review is expert curation-they choose what to quote and to use in putting together the review article. You seem to be questioning why this primary source made the cut? Do you have some reliable evidence to show that the primary source is methodologically suspect and thus that the expert opinion decision for including the primary source should be overruled?  I didn't see this, but maybe you have found something, is there a published rebuttal or controversy in the literature about the primary source or the review? Some reason to think that the expert who wrote the review made a mistake in citing this paper (if that is what you are saying happened)?
 * Again, on the face of it, the primary source includes 2 leaders in the field of gender dysphoria treatments. Devries and Cohen-Kettenis are two of the main authors for the gold standard Dutch study protocol, which is in fact what the Endocrine society paper also quotes as an authority. So one might think that the primary source is reliable. Devries has also recently written an article (primary source) saying that the results from the Dutch Protocol do not apply necessarily to the older people, such as those being discussed in this article. So I have not seen anything indicating that this secondary source is suspect or that this reference in it is suspect. Do you have evidence that this secondary source by an expert is unreliable?  That this expert is mistaken in quoting the results from this paper?  I am not sure why we aren't seeing this the same way, does my response make sense to you?  Thanks! Jdbrook (talk) 05:19, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, on the face of it, the primary source includes 2 leaders in the field of gender dysphoria treatments. Devries and Cohen-Kettenis are two of the main authors for the gold standard Dutch study protocol, which is in fact what the Endocrine society paper also quotes as an authority. So one might think that the primary source is reliable. Devries has also recently written an article (primary source) saying that the results from the Dutch Protocol do not apply necessarily to the older people, such as those being discussed in this article. So I have not seen anything indicating that this secondary source is suspect or that this reference in it is suspect. Do you have evidence that this secondary source by an expert is unreliable?  That this expert is mistaken in quoting the results from this paper?  I am not sure why we aren't seeing this the same way, does my response make sense to you?  Thanks! Jdbrook (talk) 05:19, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Newimpartial, your point to me seems to have no basis in policies or guidelines. The source is a MEDRS secondary source, period. You say the primary study it talks about is methodologically suspect, but that is not for editors here to decide. I'm not saying this exact text is the way to say anything, but the source is usable, even though care needs to be taken to avoid contradicting other material, possibly through in-text attribution. Crossroads -talk- 05:36, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * To explain, this is an instance where I see a conflict between the Wikilaw version of MEDRS and the actual meaning of the statements in the sources. What we have here is a PRIMARY set of interviews with expert practitioners, without any kind of frame or meaningful methodological provisos whatsoever - this is what I refer to as "methodologically questionable". Then we have a SECONDARY source the plain point of which is "more research needs to be done", which cites the primary source almost in passing, presumably because nothing else in the specific topic is available. The purpose of the MEDRS secondary requirement, as I understand it, is to sift through the primary sourcing - where the quality and the results themselves are most variable - and encourage us to rely on better and also more consistent studies. This particular attempt to apply MEDRS doesn't seem to me to contribute to that goal.
 * As far as the actual facts are concerned, the point the secondary source is trying to make is that there may be a difference in appropriate treatment between GD at puberty and GD after puberty. None of the text I've seen proposed for this article, from these sources, even approaches much less makes this point. Newimpartial (talk) 12:48, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I see the secondary source as making many points. The statement can be changed to reflect them differently. How about:
 * Does this accurately describe what is said the secondary? Thank you! Jdbrook (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That is certainly much better than anything else I've seen based on this source, though others should also weigh in, and there is a remaining question of DUE. Newimpartial (talk) 18:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, how are you thinking DUE is an issue? Jdbrook (talk) 22:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Seems good. WP:DUE only applies if there are so many other equally or more reliable sources contradicting it that it is 'undue weight' to mention this one, which I'm not seeing. I'll note here for clarity in the discussion that we can hardly fault a secondary source for not citing more primary sources when the whole point being made is that not enough primary research has been done. Crossroads -talk- 04:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi all, thank you. One could also show a link to the highly authoritative 2017 guidelines, using the phrasing from the discussion above this one?
 * where the reference also says," Recommendations 2.2, 2.3, 2.1,2.4 in source" or something?
 * It seems maybe then some discussion of what the Endocrine Society thinks is needed? (More rigorous evaluations, better/longer studies?) Or maybe:
 * And then in the reference: ", similarly, the 2017 Endocrine Society bases their recommendations, for when, how and who to start with puberty blockers, and hormones for adolescents, upon evidence they GRADE as “low quality”, recommendations 2.2, 2.3, 2.1,2.4.]" ?
 * These seem to be agreeing, recommendation evidence is not very good right now and how people are proceeding in light of the recommendations and their evidence? The second sentence was in response to a bunch of suggestions above; some specific guideline recommendations along with the GRADE that the guidelines gave the evidence which supported those particular recommendations.
 * Thanks! Jdbrook (talk) 02:18, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The former text still seems to me to have OR problems; the second one is better, though still not especially good prose, and the note seems to include OR as proposed. Newimpartial (talk) 02:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I am confused. Here are the recommendations, along with their grades, both created for these guidelines. Below are exact quotations from the guidelines, except that there is a vertical line right before the "⊕⊕" which seems to be read as an instruction by Wikipedia, so that has been replaced by a space.:
 * The former text still seems to me to have OR problems; the second one is better, though still not especially good prose, and the note seems to include OR as proposed. Newimpartial (talk) 02:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I am confused. Here are the recommendations, along with their grades, both created for these guidelines. Below are exact quotations from the guidelines, except that there is a vertical line right before the "⊕⊕" which seems to be read as an instruction by Wikipedia, so that has been replaced by a space.:






 * The "⊕⊕" is the "low quality" GRADE, these GRADES are one of the main results of the paper, as they state in the abstract:
 * I.e., these evidence quality GRADES for recommendations are one of the results of the paper, noted in the abstract and the list I just copied is from the "Summary of Recommendations" section at the beginning. Specifically: 2.2, says  "when" to start puberty blockers and the evidence grade is "low quality", ⊕⊕. 2.1 is "who" should start puberty blockers.  2.3 is "how".  2.4 is "who" (adolescents who request), "when" (after a multidisciplinary...), "how" (using a gradually increasing dose) for starting hormones.  The low quality evidence GRADES "⊕⊕" are right there.   My sentence is describing a set of results, the recommendation GRADES of evidence, given in the summary of the paper. Finding these GRADES was part of what the guidelines set out to do and they are results of this work.  How is this OR? It seems like relevant context for the first sentence, as you had mentioned DUE concerns. Thanks! Jdbrook (talk) 03:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I.e., these evidence quality GRADES for recommendations are one of the results of the paper, noted in the abstract and the list I just copied is from the "Summary of Recommendations" section at the beginning. Specifically: 2.2, says  "when" to start puberty blockers and the evidence grade is "low quality", ⊕⊕. 2.1 is "who" should start puberty blockers.  2.3 is "how".  2.4 is "who" (adolescents who request), "when" (after a multidisciplinary...), "how" (using a gradually increasing dose) for starting hormones.  The low quality evidence GRADES "⊕⊕" are right there.   My sentence is describing a set of results, the recommendation GRADES of evidence, given in the summary of the paper. Finding these GRADES was part of what the guidelines set out to do and they are results of this work.  How is this OR? It seems like relevant context for the first sentence, as you had mentioned DUE concerns. Thanks! Jdbrook (talk) 03:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I.e., these evidence quality GRADES for recommendations are one of the results of the paper, noted in the abstract and the list I just copied is from the "Summary of Recommendations" section at the beginning. Specifically: 2.2, says  "when" to start puberty blockers and the evidence grade is "low quality", ⊕⊕. 2.1 is "who" should start puberty blockers.  2.3 is "how".  2.4 is "who" (adolescents who request), "when" (after a multidisciplinary...), "how" (using a gradually increasing dose) for starting hormones.  The low quality evidence GRADES "⊕⊕" are right there.   My sentence is describing a set of results, the recommendation GRADES of evidence, given in the summary of the paper. Finding these GRADES was part of what the guidelines set out to do and they are results of this work.  How is this OR? It seems like relevant context for the first sentence, as you had mentioned DUE concerns. Thanks! Jdbrook (talk) 03:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I read the paper also, and were I to summarize it, this is not at all the information I would pull out. Which is not to say that I am right and you are wrong, but where the interpretation is so variable, pushing one specific interpretation in our article is OR. Newimpartial (talk) 03:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. There can be several results in an important paper, all of which might be appropriate for a Wikipedia article. I don't think the Wikipedia article is necessarily about summarizing the guidelines paper.  The lack of consensus about the treatments, the low quality of evidence being used to create treatment recommendations, these all seem relevant for understanding what is known about the  treatments.  The quality of evidence being low is not my interpretation, it is a result of the paper, it is what the "⊕⊕" symbols mean.
 * Many other statements in the paper support a need for more evidence:
 * These are more general, going beyond adolescents. I was looking at the Wikipedia article as describing the treatments, and thus these proposed statements and the quotations above seem like important information that is not yet there. The lack of knowledge about the current treatments, for instance in the suggested text we have been refining, and in the quotations directly above, is not covered, or even alluded to, in the current Wikipedia article. This information is certainly not the only thing in the guidelines, I agree with you there, for sure! I'm sure more could go in that you might think of.  Thanks! Jdbrook (talk) 04:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I would say just add the agreed-upon text, and if you like you can cite both sources; but we don't need a parenthetical or footnote like that. There's no reason for the article to get bogged down in the details of the GRADE system. Crossroads -talk- 05:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That's great!  I'll add it.  I am a bit puzzled why it is not considered relevant for people to know that these treatments are grounded in low quality evidence (it is also important for people to know that experts also are not agreeing upon the treatments, so the two are related).  The Endocrine Society guidelines say that the point of their article is to produce recommendations and grade the evidence, and knowing that evidence is low quality is pretty important for understanding the level of uncertainty in the field.  Maybe it is clearer to add something along the lines of the following?
 * Reference:   “Future research is needed to ascertain the potential harm of hormonal therapies (176).” “Owing to the lack of controlled studies, incomplete follow-up, and lack of valid assessment measures, evaluating various surgical approaches and techniques is also difficult, and several postoperative studies report significant long-term psychological and psychiatric pathology (259–261).” “In the future, we need more rigorous evaluations of the effectiveness and safety of endocrine and surgical protocols. Specifically, endocrine treatment protocols for GD/gender incongruence should include the careful assessment of the following: (1) the effects of prolonged delay of puberty in adolescents on bone health, gonadal function, and the brain (including effects on cognitive, emotional, social, and sexual development);..."
 * This aspect of the treatments, from an authoritative source, seems lacking in the entry right now? What do you think?
 * Thanks! Jdbrook (talk) 04:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If you want the article to make a general statement about the quality of evidence, you need a source making a general statement about the quality of evidence. It's pretty much that simple. Newimpartial (talk) 15:30, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you for explaining. I've tried to combine many of the sentences together from the source, in their words. How does this sound?
 * and in the reference, elaborate the sources of the quotations as
 * and
 * This is trying to follow the source very closely without plagiarizing. Thanks! Jdbrook (talk) 02:40, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * and in the reference, elaborate the sources of the quotations as
 * and
 * This is trying to follow the source very closely without plagiarizing. Thanks! Jdbrook (talk) 02:40, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This is trying to follow the source very closely without plagiarizing. Thanks! Jdbrook (talk) 02:40, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This is trying to follow the source very closely without plagiarizing. Thanks! Jdbrook (talk) 02:40, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Copyvio check
Opening a copyvio investigation here, based on this edit of 10 May 2015, as reported in this discussion at WT:MED. Mathglot (talk) 20:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Earwig copyvio check, using links in page: 31.5% for this url, 24% for this one
 * Hi. I'm guessing one helps by fixing the wording on violating phrases?  I will try to update one of them. Thanks! Jdbrook (talk) 01:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

How to best reference that puberty blockers, hormones and related drugs are not FDA approved for GD?
Hi all, and, the lack of FDA approval is not a research result. It is a fact about the FDA status of the medications. Does anyone have a suggestion of how it should be referenced? I had put in an American Medical Association reference, but that seems problematic. The information is that they have not received formal approval via the FDA process. The post was the following:

Thanks. Jdbrook talk — Jdbrook (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 20:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Is it notable they are off-label? It seems hidden pretty deep in the report and I don't see it mentioned anywhere else. Many medications are used for off-label purposes and every major medical organization supports the use of these drugs for transgender people. This seems to be mainly a case of drug manufacturers not seeing any reason to go through a certain expensive fda process than anything notable about gender dysphoria. Rab V (talk) 21:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, and see DUE issues here. Do we have quality sources that actually emphasize the "off-label" aspect? Newimpartial (talk) 21:16, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "FDA approval of a drug means that data on the drug’s effects have been reviewed by CDER, and the drug is determined to provide benefits that outweigh its known and potential risks for the intended population.".
 * Hormones, puberty blockers and other related drugs (suppressants) have not met this bar. This is not something a primary or secondary study would show.
 * Risks are on the drug label. But only for on-label uses.  These drugs can be dangerous,for instance, puberty blockers for women with endometriosis is not always reversible, and they cause osteoporosis  in men with prostate cancer.  And you can say, well, that's not relevant here, because this is a different use.  And that is correct.  The people being treated are different in terms of developmental stage, symptoms, amount of time treated, and having other things going on. The benefits have not been shown to outweigh the risks using a national assessment method that the US uses for all of its drugs.  This seems to be important information.  Thanks. Jdbrook talk 14:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I may be misunderstanding you, but your argument seems to be that (A) sources say that FDA approval is important, and (B) sources say that this use is not FDA approved, so therefore (C) it is important that these uses are not FDA approved. This seems to be an example of WP:SYNTH, if I am understanding the argument correctly. Newimpartial (talk) 15:40, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Jdbrook seems to be making an argument about what is WP:DUE, not an argument to put your point C in the article, so SYNTH doesn't apply. If a MEDRS review article or medical association statement notes that such a use is off-label, then it seems to be DUE to me. Crossroads -talk- 04:54, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe I am agreeing with Crossroads. The suggested statement is not "it is important that these drugs are not FDA approved for this purpose" but that "these drugs are not FDA approved for this purpose." This is not a study result, to be weighed against other study results which might say otherwise (there is no study saying these drugs are in fact FDA approved for this purpose, for instance).  It is a fact about the relationship between these drugs and the FDA approval process.  Thanks. Jdbrook talk 13:08, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * And where are the secondary RS showing that this is DUE for inclusion? I seem to have missed them. Newimpartial (talk) 13:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The FDA is US-specific, something to keep in mind when determining DUE and framing of inclusion of this. I also think that it's important the wording of it not imply that this makes such treatments uncommon or unusual. Citalopram is "off-label" when used to treat anxiety but SSRIs are bog-standard in the treatment of anxiety disorders. --Equivamp - talk 13:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. FDA-use-approval is completely US-centric and this article is intended for a worldwide audience. Kaldari (talk) 03:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Also agree. If this article were to contain a section on pharmaceutical usage of the drug for different conditions, across different countries (at least, a few major ones) along with their governmental regulatory requirements, then possibly a brief mention of this could be a included. At its current size, however, a section about that topic would be UNDUE in my opinion, as it's such a niche subtopic. Also, this probably isn't the right article for that subtopic.
 * There is an article called Off-label use, and conceivably it could be mentioned there (perhaps in section #Regulation in the United States); however, the same DUEness issue would apply there, imho, and it's a weak article in its current state. But if it's going to live somewhere, that's probably a better home for it. Mathglot (talk) 04:06, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

add more information to biological treaments section, how to indicate primary in support of secondary?
Hi, There is a sentence under biological treatments reading:

It doesn't give the conditions under which this occurs (this is from a 1999 review by Carroll), unlike the information for adults a few sentences earlier. Going to the review, the reference for this statement is a 1995 poster by Cohen-Kettenis and van Goozen. Looking it up online produces a 1997 paper by the same authors, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9031580/, "Sex reassignment of adolescent transsexuals: a follow-up study " (there is a paper with the same name that is much later, but it has only one of the named authors in it). This paper seems to be the right now, and says

in the abstract, and in the text there is more information about exactly what the criteria are.

So to say which adolescents were found to benefit, I was going to quote this primary reference, to clarify the requirements for treatment, as this is the treatment which was apparently quoted in the review.

I was thinking to say:

With ref2 being primary in support of review,

The primary is just detailing what the positive results apply to, it is not controversial, and is quoted in the secondary. But I was not sure how to indicate what this sentence in the secondary is referring to. It is a very specific result. Thoughts? Thank you. Jdbrook talk 04:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This seems to be veering into WP:OR analysis of a review article. If this review is 22 years old, I would suggest instead looking for a newer review and rewriting accordingly. It is best to avoid picking it bits from primary sources cited by secondary ones. We should be presenting things as the secondary sources do. Thanks. Crossroads -talk- 06:23, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Crossroads that this is veering into original research/synthesis from primary sources. That said, I wouldn't object to clarifying that the beneficial effects are specifically for adolescents with severe GD, as people without severe GD aren't going to be seeking sex reassignment surgery anyway, so I don't think such a statement would be controversial. Either way, it would be best to find a newer review article that could be used to boster such a clarification (and maybe add some more information). Kaldari (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you both. I will keep looking. I think there were also similar requirements in a later study from the same team (the Dutch Protocol study of 55 people, rather than 22).  It seems to me that lifelong severe GD is more restrictive than severe GD, so there is added information, similarly for the psychological stability.  I will see if there is a review quoting the later Dutch protocol paper for adolescents in particular. I think normally people just say "adults" for over 18.  The 2017 Endocrine Society Guidelines  said in their discussion for surgery that:
 * . This seems to be one of the sentences in the 2009 reference, but that reference also says in its conclusions,
 * and this statement is not about adolescents in particular and doesn't extend to the whole process, and the source they are quoting doesn't seem to think they can conclude much at all.  I don't know what to make of this.  I'll keep looking. Thank you.  Jdbrook talk 05:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Some success, here is a trial suggestion. The current statement is
 * a 1999 reference that quotes a poster, and where one can guess as to the actual reference and thus criteria, but it is unclear. This old review is quoting the precursor to the Dutch Protocol, a study with 22 people.  Here is a review quoting the Dutch Protocol itself, based on the 2014 DeVries et al paper:
 * How about using the above as the reference for the text below, also linking to the 2008 paper and the deVries 2014 paper and then in the text using:
 * Does this work to replace the current sentence? It is probably good to be mentioning this 2014 study anyhow, as it is the one quoted widely for young people.  Thanks a lot. Jdbrook talk 01:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks good Crossroads -talk- 04:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Jdbrook talk 23:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Neither your suggested text, nor the review article it cites deal specifically with older adolescents, so I don't see how it's a replacement for the previous text rather than something to augement the information about adolescents in general. Kaldari (talk) 04:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Does this work to replace the current sentence? It is probably good to be mentioning this 2014 study anyhow, as it is the one quoted widely for young people.  Thanks a lot. Jdbrook talk 01:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks good Crossroads -talk- 04:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Jdbrook talk 23:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Neither your suggested text, nor the review article it cites deal specifically with older adolescents, so I don't see how it's a replacement for the previous text rather than something to augement the information about adolescents in general. Kaldari (talk) 04:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Neither your suggested text, nor the review article it cites deal specifically with older adolescents, so I don't see how it's a replacement for the previous text rather than something to augement the information about adolescents in general. Kaldari (talk) 04:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Specifying SOC-6 in reference
Kaldari WP:MEDRS is clear about that clinical recommendations are critical. The chapter referenced for support of a clinical protocol was written before SOC-7 was released so this source can not be referenced as a recommendation for the later clinical treatment protocol (with major changes). Either "6" needs to be specified or the sentence needs to be changed to be WP:MEDRS compliantKoenigHall (talk) 09:19, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Is SoC 7 significantly different with regards to that recommendation? Rab V (talk) 23:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Per WP:MEDRS and WP:OR, we should not specify verison 6 or version 7, as neither is specified in the source document. Kaldari (talk) 20:41, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Kaldari SInce the source cannot refer to version 7 the source is incorrectly used as a second source to the validity of the present SOC. Perhaps this can be resolved by retaining the reference but adding a clarifcation, i.e. that the reference was written prior to the release of SOC-7. The sentences is a clinical recommendation, it shouldn't have been put in there. KoenigHall (talk) 14:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That is original research, which isn't allowed on Wikipedia. Plus it's just a guess. The Merck manual and the SOC were published within 2 months of each other. It's entirely possible the authors of the Merck manual had access to a draft of version 7, or maybe they were only familiar with a previous version like version 5, or maybe they were summarizing results across several versions. We have no idea. Kaldari (talk) 15:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Kaldari OR not relevant here. "might have had access" is not good enough, neither is "We have no idea". Again, clinical recommendations need more substance than that. Note the WPATH commissioned systematic review conclusion that directly follows contradicts the sentence preceding it. At the very minimum a clarification.needs to be added, but I think the "6" is simpler. KoenigHall (talk) 16:03, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * So your educated guess that the publishers of the Merck manual were probably referencing SOC version 6 is good enough to make a medical recommendation with? That is a textbook violation of WP:OR. It's also extremely confusing, as it suggests that version 6 is somehow the most "correct" version, rather than the current version of the standard. And no, the statement is not contradicted by the preceding sentence. The WPATH commissioned study says that the quality of the evidence is weak, but it also says that the evidence points to hormone therapy being effective (which isn't specific to any version of the SOC). I would like to get the opinions of other experienced editors on this: . Kaldari (talk) 16:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That's my reading of it as well, Kaldari. Rab V (talk) 17:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Kaldari I inserted the "6" as a compromise. 1) The sentence references an opinion and clinical recommendation and is not a (reliable) secondary source referencing research findings. 2) The conclusion of the WPATH systematic review which follows renders the unqualified assertion that  "sex reassignment surgery can be effective at treating GD" misleading, if not directly contradicting the assertion,  since the review (commissioned by WPATH themselves) explicitly states the strength of evidence for this is low. KoenigHall (talk) 18:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The SRS recommendation isn't misleading since it is a recommendation from the SoC. WPATH's comment about certain kinds of studies doesn't contradict that. Your version seems to imply they are against recommending SRS which is misleading.Rab V (talk) 19:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Rab V I see the point that my version "seems to imply". Please insert the full quote from the handbook in the reference to help resolve this. The handbook unlikely presents a clinical recommendation that rests on any further evidence than SOCs recommendation. This is not a valid second source for evidence that it "can be used".KoenigHall (talk) 10:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's just the phrasing but I'm not clear if I get what you are asking. Either way from the current WPATH SoC 'Feminizing/masculinizing hormone therapy—the administration of exogenous endocrine agents to induce feminizing or masculinizing changes—is a medically necessary intervention for many transsexual, transgender, and gender-nonconforming individuals with gender dysphoria' and 'Surgery – particularly genital surgery – is often the last and the most considered step in the treatment process for gender dysphoria. While many transsexual, transgender, and gender-nonconforming individuals find comfort with their gender identity, role, and expression without surgery, for many others surgery is essential and medically necessary to alleviate their gender dysphoria.' Both quotes are clear these medical interventions are necessities  and entire sections are dedicated towards ethical and medical criteria WPATH recommends. Rab V (talk) 02:12, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Rab V I meant a quote from the Merck Handbook that would clearly show 1)  the quote (as it stands) in the Merck handbook  2) that this is a secondary source and not simply a quote of what is stated in the SOC and 3) that this is not a quote specifically from SOC-6.KoenigHall (talk) 10:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Textbooks are tertiary sources, the SoC is a secondary source and the most definitive source on what the SoC says. Rab V (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Rab V Please include the exact quote in the Merck HandbookKoenigHall (talk) 21:09, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:MEDRS. SOC is a secondary source, textbooks are tertiary. Rab V (talk) 01:22, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Finnish systematic review reference for lack of evidence
Rab V (Did take it to talk, with details, but something went wrong). The source you critiqued is the summary of a guideline for treatment of children and adolescents from a systematic review, all in Finnish. The systematic review by an expert team covers both evidence for a guidelines for treatment of “minors”, adults and, a separate guideline “non-binary”. The reference was to the Finnish Authority website and the summary for minors and is not a primary source. The three summaries are the only official English translations the Authority posted. The other documents are in Finnish. I can change the reference to the Finnish documents instead, with a quote containing the original statement in Finnish and also a translation (google translate can verify) which is clear enough, where they state there is no evidence for medical treatment. Do you have formal objections to this?KoenigHall (talk) 19:33, 20 April 2021 (UTC) — KoenigHall (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Something appears to have been lost in translation in the edit proposed here. That edit states that there is not sufficient research to support evidence for medical treatment of gender dysphoria in children and adolsexcents, but neither national study appears to say this (in Swedish or in Finnish). T1he Swedish review simply observes that not much data is available, while the Finnish authority does not recommend against medical treatment of gender dysphoria in children or adolescents, but rather offers guidance for practitioners when offering such treatment (after lamenting the paucity of data). The proposed language not sufficient research to support thus fails verification. Newimpartial (talk) 19:56, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Newimpartial I agree that the official Swedish summary is not good and too brief. I could use the resulting full minors guideline (march 2021) as a reference, where they, in the methods section, explicitly conclude/state that there is not enough evidence for medical treatment of minors. Similarly with the Finnish expert team. Are there any formal objections to citing and quoting the Swedish / Finnish documents together with the translations of the respective statements (easily verified w google translate)?KoenigHall (talk) 20:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Please provide the text from each authority (in the native language) which you interpret as concluding that there is not enough evidence to support the medical treatment of minors. Because I'm not seeing it. Newimpartial (talk) 20:30, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I read the summaries of both the Swedish and Finnish reports and the translated Discussion section of the Swedish report. The Finnish report clearly contradicts your edit:
 * "Based on these assessments, puberty suppression treatment may be initiated on a case-by-case basis after careful consideration and appropriate diagnostic examinations if the medical indications for the treatment are present and there are no contraindications... Based on thorough, case-by-case consideration, the initiation of hormonal interventions that alter sex characteristics may be considered before the person is 18 years of age only if it can be ascertained that their identity as the other sex is of a permanent nature and causes severe dysphoria."
 * The Swedish report just gives an overview of the current state of research. It makes no such sweeping claims about medical treatment being unsupported by research. It just says there are "few" studies on the long-term effects in adolescents and children. Your edit was both original research and a clear misrepresentation of the Finnish source. Kaldari (talk) 23:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding the above, I don't see that these are primary sources - they sound like secondary ones. That said, KoenigHall, it would probably be simplest to state here whatever you are proposing on adding now (since what was done before looks non-viable) along with a quote of the source that supports it. Be sure to represent the meaning carefully. And please remember to sign your comments. Crossroads -talk- 05:01, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Kaldari talk Crossroads The earlier summaries in English (the only ones published in English) were not sufficient to support the claim in my edit. Now moved the edit to the end of the paragraph with the relevant quotes from the original recent new guidelines. These are the Government bodies and national guidelines and therefore by WP:MEDRS judged reliable secondary, not ORKoenigHall (talk) 10:30, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You are still making conclusions that are beyond what the studies actually say and implying things that aren't true. For example, your latest edit states that "The Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare concludes treatment of children is not based on conclusions from scientific evidence." But what the study actually says is that there is a small probability that there is sufficient scientific evidence to make conclusions about the treatment of children. Your edit also says that the "Swedish guidelines do not explicitly prohibit the use of puberty blockers". What guidelines are you talking about? The citation is a research review, not a guideline, and it doesn't express any opinion on whether puberty blockers should be used or not. Kaldari (talk) 15:45, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Kaldari 1) Please don't erase whole paragraphs if you judge a small phrase or wording needs correction. I disagree with your semantical interpretation, but it is easily resolved by replacing my brief summary with the exact citation. Will do. 2) This is the New Swedish National Guideline published march 2021. (For minors only). I will add reference to the Website page where the .pdf resides. KoenigHall (talk) 16:08, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

KoenigHall, I have reverted your edit as misinterpreting the sources on which it is based and UNDUE. You simply cannot take studies that document the limitations of the available evidence for a treatment, and turn them into evidence against a treatment, which is what you (but not the sources) have apparently been doing through selective quotation and inaccurate paraphrase. How about working out a DUE version here on Talk rather than edit-warring in support of your preferred version? Newimpartial (talk) 16:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Newimpartial Your argument is not based on WP rules. My brief citations are not flawed, it is the nature of brief citations to a full paragraph (which was included as a quote), and I complied to expand on the edit citation when requested. To not wish reliable sources to be referenced and therefore reverting edits constitutes an element of WP:Vandalism.  KoenigHall (talk) 16:59, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Interesting attempt at deflection, or so it seems. I have read the sources from which you extracted your quotations, and those passages do not provide evidence against a treatment as I stated above, nor do they support your misleading assertion that the Swedish guidelines do not explicitly prohibit the use of puberty blockers and the Finnish guidelines state puberty blockers may be prescribed in isolated cases. Why you would refer to as vandalism my policy-based stipulation that you support your edit with sources that actually support the claims made in your edit, I have no idea. Reversion of cherry-picked, UNDUE statements and misleading paraphrases is not "Vandalism", yo. Newimpartial (talk) 17:04, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * talk I only now saw your comment in the revision history on my sentence "Swedish guidelines do not explicitly prohibit the use of puberty blockers and the Finnish guidelines state puberty blockers may be prescribed in isolated case". (same as in your comment here above), and I now understand what you are reacting to. Here is a misunderstanding. I added that sentence so that it SHOULD NOT be concluded that the Swedish NBHW, although they say there is no evidence for medical treatment, disallows use of Puberty blockers. (In the Swedish medical Journal a leading professor of GD research, the most prominent authority in the team doing the systematic review commissioned by the Government, wrote that "there is no evidence" and requested that medical treatments of minors should only be conducted as clinical trials). The NBHW nevertheless decided NOT to limit this option to clinicians although they state in the guideline there is likely no research to support evidence for treatment. Similarly, my intention was to clarify that the categorical  statement by the Finnish expert team SHOULD NOT be misunderstood as their altogether dismissing the option to use puberty blockers. I will therefore also reconsider your argument of my edit pssoibly giving WP:UNDUE weight to evidence against medical treatment. Right now, I think you are wrong, also WPATH themselves, and Endocr soc admit that there is no scientific evidence (Joshua Safer says that SOC-8 will be evidence based). But, one has to differentiate between, on the one hand, the WP text giving due weight to the consensus of there being "Not evidence from the scientific research" and, on the other hand, due weight to a "clinicians practice experience point of view" (widespread in the US but not consensus) that medical treatment of minors with puberty blockers is warranted.  I will "chew a bit" on ways to reconcile the requirements hereKoenigHall (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly certain you are also misreading what WPATH themselves are saying. Asking for more of certain kinds of studies is not the same as WPATH saying there is no scientific evidence for a treatment. Rab V (talk) 18:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As you reflect, KoenigHall, perhaps also consider that clinicians practice experience point of view carries no discernable meaning in English; this is, after all, English-language Wikipedia and not Google-translate Wikipedia. Newimpartial (talk) 18:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Newimpartial Suggestion (the relevant direct quote is unequivocal and will be included same as in the reverted edit, see below):
 * Similarly, the Finnish Government commissioned a review of the research evidence for treatment of minors and the Finnish Ministry of Health concluded that there are no research-based health care methods for minors. Nevertheless, they recommend the use of puberty blockers for minors on a case by case basis.
 * Quote: p. 6: ”Terveydenhuoltolain mukaan (8§) terveydenhuollon toiminnan on perustuttava näyttöön ja hyviin hoito- ja toimintakäytäntöihin. Alaikäisten osalta tutkimusnäyttöön perustuvia terveydenhuollon menetelmiä ei ole.” “According to the Health Care Act (Section 8), health care activities must be based on evidence and good care and operating practices. There are no research-based health care methods for minors.”
 * https://palveluvalikoima.fi/documents/1237350/22895008/Alaik%C3%A4iset_suositus.pdf/c987a74c-dfac-d82f-2142-684f8ddead64/Alaik%C3%A4iset_suositus.pdfKoenigHall (talk) 20:51, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * To continue the discussion of translation, I suspect that "modalities" conveys what is meant, rather than methods. Newimpartial (talk) 21:15, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Newimpartial Yes, modalities is likely a better translation, thank you. I inserted the text with "modalities", but in the quote I retained "methods" since this is the result of the google translate.. Google translate:"According ...methods.."KoenigHall (talk) 08:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Gender euphoria into Gender dysphoria
The article is largely a definition of the term as the opposite of gender dysphoria, and the sources note it is a recent neologism. User:力 (power~enwiki, π,  ν ) 21:03, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think I oppose merging, as this is a medical topic, and as one of the very few relevant sources on the other article says, [The concept of gender euphoria] has thus far not been rigorously defined or operationalized within health research. Gender euphoria is probably better off deleted until more sourcing exists. --Equivamp - talk 21:25, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * To add to what Equivamp helpfully brought out, as a purported medical topic (opposite of gender dysphoria), it needs WP:MEDRS-level sources to support its existence. That means literature reviews and the like. These don't exist. It therefore should not have an article or text located here. I support deletion, even though nobody will probably implement that from a merge discussion. Crossroads -talk- 05:52, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Based on this feedback, I've started an AFD discussion. Articles for deletion/Gender euphoria.  People can still argue for a merge there if they feel it appropriate. User:力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 15:27, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Counseling for GD wording
Hi. I see you changed:

to

Because " think including counseling here is confusing since it contrasts it with counseling for supporting gender identity and does not get the intended point across that counseling may be for other issues". I agree, my intended point is that it might be for other related issues, and it seems that got lost in my wording. Thank you for pointing that out.

The idea was that counseling may also be for the causes of GD, which is a common treatment, see above in the page. In the latter, the counseling ("this") appears to only be for " supporting the individual's gender expression and role, or their desire for hormone therapy or surgery". The second version seems to narrow the role of psychological counseling, as it is detailing aspects of the previous sentence.

Would it be more accurate to say: Or perhaps you have a better idea? Thanks. Jdbrook talk 02:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Psychological counseling should be moved up because the counseling isn't just in relation to the changes from hormone therapy and the like, which is what it sort of sounds like that way and is confusingly written. I will implement that again. Note that until the 22nd, that first sentence said "psychotherapy", which is very similar and is thus the status quo. I don't think "for possible underlying issues" is needed. Crossroads -talk- 05:27, 25 April 2021 (UTC)