Talk:Irreversible Damage/Archive 1

Discussion of contents of "Irreversible Damage"
There is an ongoing edit war to remove or change the meaning of descriptions of the content of "Irreversible Damage". Any changes should be reverted unless a consensus has first been reached here (WP:BRD). Bravetheif (talk) 06:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The book cannot be accurately represented without also including a discussion of it's contents. It should either be left with discussion of it's content or it should be made a single line statement. Including mention of it's accolades and alleged censorship, without also discussing it's content does not give a WP:NPOV. The scientific basis of the book (as discussed in chapter 2), the 2018 Littman study, is not considered credible and does not support the current scientific understanding of gender (WP:TINFOILHAT). Furthermore, many of the claims made by the book are misleading or false. Bravetheif (talk) 06:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)


 * You are the only one edit-warring: . 13 reverts in the last 24 hours by my count! I have already reported your conduct to the BLP noticeboard. If an admin from there does not block you, then I will immediately report you to WP:AN/3. You edits are wholly comprised of non-WP:RSs & WP:OR. This is a major WP:BLP violation. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 07:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Reverting content that deletes or alters large portions of an article is inline with WP:BRD. WP:BLP involves removing content that is not provably true, it doesn't mean removing all negative statements. The statements removed were cited and the unreliable sources were removed, it was not WP:OR or WP:SYNTH Bravetheif (talk) 07:15, 9 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Users deleted large parts of your edits because they were poorly sourced or comprised of OR. For instance, I see you used this academic paper as a source: . Very good, that's seems like a high-quality, peer-reviewed source. The only problem is that it makes no mention of Shrier or her book. The paper does not analyze the book in anyway. This is called Original Research, which includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. In other words, you combined your own personal knowledge of the book, with the information from the source in an effort to "debunk" the book--this is not allowed. You used other academic papers that also had no mention of Shrier or the book. Additionally, you used sources such as Medium and Slowly Boiled Frog. These sources are called self-published sources and they are written by absolutely anyone. These types of sources violate WP:BLPSPS. I could go on, but I have better stuff to do at the moment. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 07:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The entire second chapter of Shrier's book is a discussion of Lisa Littman's research. It directly cites it as its scientific basis. My aim was to summarise the position the book was taking, but doing so uncritically creates a POV in favour of the book. So a discussion of the scientific credibility of that position is relevant. Futhermore, the Psychology Today article does directly reference the book and the fringeness of ROGD. As for the other sources, Julia Serano (the medium writer) is not "absolutely anyone"; she has a PHD in biochemistry and has written books relevant to this subject. I also already said I missed the Slowly Boiled Frog citation, I intended to remove it. Bravetheif (talk) 08:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC)


 * It should be added that the author of the PsychologyToday article is himself a controversial researcher  with a number of financial conflicts of interests which he does not mention in his research papers. It would be prudent to either remove the statements backed by this reference alone, or to accurately describe the conflict of interest inherent in the source. As you've mentioned all statements based on blog articles also need to go, in line with WP:BLPSPS. ParisDakarPeräjärvi (talk) 23:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC) — ParisDakarPeräjärvi (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * I don't care how many Ph.d's she has, this article MUST adhere to WP:BLP policies. Per WP:RSP, Medium is an unreliable source and "should never be used as a secondary source for living persons". Additionally, you still don't understand WP:OR. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 23:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)


 * It is not being used as a source for a living person, it's being used to substantiate the statements about the credibility of ROGD. It pretty clearly meets the standard for WP:SPS in that case. Looking at the examples and definition of WP:SYNTH, the statements do not meet that definition either. Summarising the book, and then proceeding to expand on the scientific basis of that summary is not the same as connecting two unrelated pieces of information with a conclusion. Bravetheif (talk) 00:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * A SPS can never be included into a BLP (unless written by the author of the BLP). Furthermore, you just admitted to Original Research. For argument's sake, let's say the Medium source was not a SPS, and, instead, it was written in the New York Times. In that case, it would still not be allowed to be included in this article. Because the source does not directly evaluate the author or her work. You're the one who says the book contains arguments on ROGD--not the source. I have no idea if the book even contains arguments on ROGD--because the source does not state so. In other words, we can't use you as a source: this is Original Research. Perhaps I'm not the best at explaining this... Please, I urge you to seek assistance at WP:HELPDESK & WP:TEA. They should be able to answer all your questions. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 01:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Turban is a well regarded figure in transgender research, and the source used in the article (like all my sources discussing a living person) clearly meet WP:BLP. He is a notorious figure due to the high profile of his research. With how controversial transgender medicine is as a whole, it's expected that it would also reflect on him. Three letters to the editor, one of which supports conversion therapy, and an out-of-context financial statement with no direct bearing to the source in question is not enough to discredit Turban's writing as a whole. Bravetheif (talk) 00:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Turban is by no means a well regarded figure. As for his COIs, you can have a look at his November presentations for the WPATH symposium. I do not have a link for it, which is why I did not include it at first. Now that WPATH is cracking down a bit on conflicts of interests, he appears to have realized that he has had five different revenue streams that directly conflict with his research work and that maybe, just maybe, getting $15k from a company producing puberty blockers while writing papers about puberty blockers is something worth mentioning. In addition, the accusation is that research is being "omitted" is something Turban backs up with a number of papers that were published AFTER the book itself was published. In addition, he suggests research based on old criteria is irrelevant, something that would be worthwhile if there was any research whatsoever on the outcomes given the current criteria. These are very dishonest arguments from Jack - I would argue something that discredits this article overall - and even in its most uncharitable reading it could never be described as "omitted". ParisDakarPeräjärvi (talk) 01:28, 10 December 2020 (UTC) — ParisDakarPeräjärvi (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Turban's opinion on puberty blockers lines up with the current scientific consensus in the field. A large part of Bigg's critique relies on the fact that some of the respondents would have never had access to puberty blockers, but I fail to see how that is actually relevant. The study was not one of access to puberty blockers, but of it's relation to suicidal ideation. For the purpose of the analysis, not having puberty blockers and not having access to puberty blockers are the same. Furthermore, in his article, Turban is not claiming that research based on the DSM-IV definition of GID is broadly irrelevant, he's claiming specifically that research on youth detransitioning that was conducted with the old definition is not trustworthy. His reason for doing so is sound, and is supported by the fact they narrowed the definition in the DSM-V. Also, he's not saying the research he has listed is being "omitted", he literally states they're for further reading: "I've listed several in the references for those interested in reading more." None of these are dishonest arguments. I have relented with the other issues and will be reducing my statements about the book to adhere to the strictest interpretation of WP:BLP, but that source meets the standard. Bravetheif (talk) 02:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * As you will no doubt be aware that there is no medical (nor social or legal) consensus, this is in fact a hotly debated topic, one where public investigations into the matter (UK, Finland, Sweden) accurately conclude that the evidence base simply isn't there, and that the treatment is experimental in nature. With the NHS finding itself in trouble and changing their description to include that "Little is known about the long-term side effects of hormone or puberty blockers in children with gender dysphoria." There is no consensus. Further, if Turban wants to make the argument that the diagnostic changes (which coincides with a ten, twenty or, in some places, forty-fold increase in cases) would result in a lower net rate of desistance, that's speculative, but that still doesn't change the fact that there is no research available to omit here. That phrasing needs to go.ParisDakarPeräjärvi (talk) 06:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC) — ParisDakarPeräjärvi (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * I don't even know what a "legal" or "social" consensus is, I have never even heard of one and I do not see how it would even be relevant to this discussion. As Turban points out in the article, most reputable and related scientific bodies support gender-affirming medical care, including the use of puberty blockers.  . The Mayo Clinic and other national healthcare systems  also support their use. Speculating that the NHS changed the description because they found themselves in (legal?) trouble is not productive. I could just as much argue that they changed the language after facing media pressure from uninformed groups. Bringing in wider debate about the controversial nature of trans research is not relevant, and it's especially rich on the article about the woman who's book is largely based on a fringe theory supported by a single discredited study. Additionally, please cite a (reputable) source that can directly link the definition change in the DSM-5 to a forty-fold increase in cases. Because I don't see how a more restrictive diagnosis would itself create a forty-fold increase in cases.  . The fact that Shrier failed to mention that the change in definition likely affected the rates somewhat, something her own source says, is omitting evidence. She also omits evidence showing trans children are more stigmatized than LGB children to support her own theory to the contrary. That is omitting evidence. The fact she ignored evidence demonstrating that gender-affirming medical care improves mental health outcomes is also omitting evidence. Bravetheif (talk) 08:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Obviously an organization like WPATH who heavily misrepresents the knowledge about the long term effects of puberty suppression can not be described as "reputable". You could no doubt argue that "the NHS changed the language after facing media pressure from uninformed groups", although you would of course be presenting a losing argument there as the situation involved expert witnesses, extensive investigation and of course a full opportunity for the clinic to present any and all research it wished to present in order to not lose the legal battle. Which they did, and it amounted to very little. As for the DSM changes, I did not say there was a "direct link", I suggested that the coinciding demographic change would likely override any positives from the - on paper - stricter definition. In addition, you say there is no discussion of the impact of the changes, which is simply false when reading the book. You also continue to describe a currently standing (with zero substantive changes) peer-reviewed paper as "discredited", which is simply incorrect. You may certainly call it controversial, but it is not discredited by any means. You bring up areas the book barely touches upon and say it omits evidence in those areas, which makes no sense to me. Adding unsupported claims and arguing against a straw-book is not helpful here.ParisDakarPeräjärvi (talk) 09:08, 10 December 2020 (UTC) — ParisDakarPeräjärvi (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Obviously an organization like WPATH who heavily misrepresents the knowledge about the long term effects of puberty suppression can not be described as "reputable" You also ignore that the other organisations Turban & I cited. Well done misrepresenting the NHS case though, which was not, as you imply, about the efficacy of puberty blockers, rather it was about the ability for under 16s to give "informed consent" given that their long term effects have not been thoroughly studied. Not that a legal case has any bearing on whether or not a treatment works. Now for the claim that the definition change contributed to a dramatic increase in diagnosis; ok, so there is no direct link. You're just speculating. Great, but not a reason to remove the Turban article. As for the Littman study, it has been discredited. It's conclusion is not mainstream and it lacks the evidence to support such a fringe view (making it WP:FRINGE), and it has been repeatedly criticised. It in fact was withdrawn, corrected, and the journal published an apology. It is also the only study that advances that theory. That meets the definition of "discredited". The fact she focused heavily on that, disregarding the far more mainstream theories points to the fact she is cherrypicking sources. As for the remainder, it doesn't matter how little a portion of the book it makes up, what matters is that she came to those conclusions by ignoring the evidence and consensus that stated the opposite. That is lying by omission and, since Turban directly addresses that fact, it meets the strict standards for WP:BLP Bravetheif (talk) 09:47, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Sources and Source Issues in this article.
Alright, this has been painful to read through and even more painful to examine. There are precious few valid sources involved here, and plenty that offer nothing usable within wikipedia policy.


 * 1) Turban, Jack (2020-06-12). "New Book "Irreversible Damage" Is Full of Misinformation". Psychology Today. Retrieved 2020-08-12.
 * Jack Turban is, in fact, a well respected expert in these topics . Acceptable use of self-published works "2. The author is an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications..." The Psychology Today publication, while it is listed as a "blog" under the PT website, should be valid with attribution under WP:USESPS.


 * 1) https://www.economist.com/united-states/2020/11/28/a-book-on-transitioning-girls-is-denounced-as-transphobic
 * This, on the other hand, is egregiously against policy. Not only is it an opinion column, it isn't even bylined. Worse still, it appears to be a reprinting from a non-WP:RS source elsewhere (published two days earlier: https://timesnest.com/miss-gender-a-book-on-transitioning-girls-is-denounced-as-transphobic-united-states/ https://timesnest.com/about-us/).

Similarly bad, non-RS sources include "Christian Post" entries, including an opinion column masquerading as a "book review"; A "Hillsdale Collegian" pseudo-review opinion column from the "culture" section; and various other opinion columns that add nothing of relevance (Ben Shapiro for instance is not an expert on transgender issues in any way, shape, or form).

As a broader problem, it appears that the article fails to demonstrate Shrier's notability under Notability guidelines, save for having published this book (which means the policy Notability_(people) precludes this article). If not for page protection, I'd nominate it under Criteria for speedy deletion, and I make the request that who protected the article consider doing so. IHateAccounts (talk) 04:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank-you to Oshwah for assisting with the formatting: the nomination has now been filed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Abigail_Shrier. IHateAccounts (talk) 19:45, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Misgendering a transgender suicide victim
While I am sympathetic to your position, I am afraid that edit is not suitable for inclusion in this article. We need a WP:SECONDARY source for that (especially because we are dealing with a WP:BLP). &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 06:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Special:Diff/993171749
 * What if the language was changed to "Shrier has a history of criticising the movement to refer people by their gender identity rather than biological sex", with the supporting citations.  Bravetheif (talk) 08:05, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Though I still think this article doesn't establish Shrier's notability, here's an article covering the book and some controversy it generated for Target. https://www.gaycitynews.com/bigots-swarm-twitter-as-target-flip-flops-on-transphobic-book/ IHateAccounts (talk) 15:06, 11 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the source, I will remove the part about Leelah Alcorn but keep the part about Shrier misgendering subjects of discussion. I do agree however, this article is not notable enough and should be deleted. Bravetheif (talk) 23:51, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If the Alcorn mentions are removed, then that is fine with me. That was what crossed a bright line for me. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 23:59, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Reliability of GCN
Please see:. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 22:26, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Including Economist opinion piece
, please discuss here about whether or not the Economist piece should be quoted. Bravetheif (talk) 06:36, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I really appreciate that you are posting this, but these two users should not in any way interact with one another. That they are doing so now is rather upsetting for me. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 07:08, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I see your point Bravetheif (talk) 07:57, 19 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry (and MJL). I didnt meant to edit war. This article really should have passed AfD. What's the point of just renaming it? There's probably even less sources that just cover the book. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 08:08, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems the consensus reached on AfD was that the article should be renamed and refocused on her book. I personally don't think there are enough independent sources to cover either subject properly, most sources I've seen are opinion articles or self-published Bravetheif (talk) 08:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Almost all the sources are opinion pieces, or sources that give basic biographical info. Anyway, can we reinsert the Economist piece? It's one of the only reliable articles we have at the moment. Definitely more so than that opinion article from Men's Health, or the Vice article (which isnt a RS). Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 08:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't really have a dog in this specific fight. Taking a quick look, it appears The Economist is in fact the original author of the article, as the bottom of the TimesNest article links to them. It thus seems permissible, providing it is attributed like it was previously (I'm not sure if IHateAccounts has other objections though, so my opinion may change!) Bravetheif (talk) 09:12, 19 December 2020 (UTC)


 * That's exactly what I noticed too. It appears they use something called the Trust Project to circulate the same article. Even so, I don't see how "TimesNest" wouldn't be a RS either. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 09:21, 19 December 2020 (UTC)


 * If it was a direct citation to an article written and hosted by TimesNest, I would err towards considering it a non-RS. TimesNest does not appear to have an editorial team and their articles have no by-lines, making it WP:QUESTIONABLE. It seems every article is written/edited by "srikishan87", making it a WP:SPS. On a more subjective measure, the site just doesn't pass the sniff test. It feels like a content farm, and they haven't even fully modified the wordpress template they're using (the "follow us" links on this 404 page links to the "Facebook" Facebook page and the theme marketplace's youtube channel). Bravetheif (talk) 09:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Even so, this article was not written by TimesNest. Besides being written in such a professional manner, TimesNest links to the Economist at the end (and not the other way around). I don't think the Economist would publish such an unknown source. Also, at the bottom for both articles it reads: "This article appeared in the United States section of the print edition under the headline 'Miss gender.'" TimesNest does not have a print edition, so this does not make sense. However, I found the article written in the Nov.28th edition of the Economist entitled: How resilient is democracy? . The article is, indeed, called "Miss gender," and it's one of the first articles listed in that edition. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 10:03, 19 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Which is why I think the source is permissible. My point was I wouldn't consider hypothetical content published originally and exclusively by TimesNest to be reliable. Bravetheif (talk) 10:26, 19 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Good point. I have no idea why TimesNest didn't attribute it to the Economist. Seems like a possible copy-right vio. Anyway, this would fall under WP:RSEDITORIAL, where we would just have to simply attribute it to the Economist, correct? Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 10:34, 19 December 2020 (UTC)


 * That is my understanding of RSEDITORIAL Bravetheif (talk) 10:43, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * TimesNest is a WordPress blog. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 20:16, 19 December 2020 (UTC)


 * ABOUTSELF applies--jk. It was written by the Economist and merely reprinted in TimesNest. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 20:50, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This was a response to Even so, I don't see how "TimesNest" wouldn't be a RS either. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 20:54, 19 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I already had a discussion about this with Bravethief. But I always appreciate your knowledge and wisdom, MJL! Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 21:49, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Singular they
Special:Diff/996527851

We are clearly in some disagreement about how the WSJ article should be summarized (and discussing through edits is not ideal :P). I agree with your general reading, that she is criticising "the government enforced use of gender pronouns and other vocabulary", however I think we should also include that she is criticising the adoption of the singular they. Paragraph 5 describes the use of singular they as For those with a religious conviction that sex is both biological and binary, God’s purposeful creation, denial of this involves sacrilege no less than bowing to idols in the town square. While not the main point of the article, it appears to be the point most cited. As such I think it should also be mentioned alongside the main summary. Bravetheif (talk) 03:58, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking this to the talk page. It is not clear from the WSJ article if Shrier is arguing that the passage you posted is her opinion, or the opinion of some whose constitutional rights she is arguing should be respected. Since it seems other sources are mis/over-interpreting her, Wikipedia should not be following these. This is especially important here on BLP grounds. If you have other sources of her more clearly arguing against the singular they, than I agree this should be included--but it needs to be her arguing this-not someone saying she argued this in a source where this is not the case. -Pengortm (talk) 05:50, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That seems reasonable. I will look for a better source Bravetheif (talk) 06:15, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Revert
please clarify the reasons for your revert here. Book reception sections typically begin with summaries of the reviews. It is inevitable that a book will receive more attention from people generally in agreement with the author--e.g., a work of Marxist history is likely to be reviewed by other Marxists, and a work of Calvinist theology is likely to be reviewed by other Calvinists. You claimed in your edit summary that I was over-emphasising the opinions of the alt-right fringe. Which of the sources that I added deserves this descriptor? Commentary is a respected neocon magazine. The National Review is a mainstream conservative publication. The Economist is neoliberal. Feminist Current is a radical feminist website. The Daily Dot is a left-leaning internet culture website. Them is a LGBT-focused publication. Were there any elements of my edit to which you would not object? I can't imagine, for instance, that "Target pulled and later reinstated the book from their stores" is preferable to "Target pulled the book from their stores and later reinstated it"--but I've been reverted both times I've tried to make that change. Cheers, gnu 57 19:31, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * For starters, "The book has proven controversial for its views about transgender issues" is the WP:DUE summary of coverage and should lead the section. Also, your edit buried Jack Turban - the only actual expert in transgender mental health to review the book - in the middle of a paragraph, easily missed. "The National Review is a mainstream conservative publication" is a questionable claim at best; I would categorize them alt-lite if not alt-right, especially in the past two decades with the death of Buckley and the rise of contributors such as Victor Davis Hanson. There are similar issues for Commentary under the "leadership" (if it can even be called that) of John Podhoretz. It would be best if you can provide a list of your proposed sources and which category they fall into here for examination. IHateAccounts (talk) 19:43, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Biased and opinionated sources are acceptable for statements of attributed opinion. Book reviews are always a matter of opinion. WP:NPOV calls for presenting all significant viewpoints impartially, not for excluding the misguided or offensive ones. Commentary and the National Review are major US conservative publications; Naomi Schaefer Riley is a notable journalist and cultural commentator. Your revert removed an expanded summary of Turban's comments. I would be happy to place the mention of Turban at the beginning or end of a paragraph, or wherever else you like. Cheers, gnu 57 20:55, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * In general more mainstream, well known and substantial sources should go ahead of those that are less so (regardless of editors opinions on these sources). I think this revert should be reverted. -Pengortm (talk) 21:57, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Turban is the only reaction listed with authoritative experience in the subject area. While I certainly understand (and generally support) placing official book reviews at the beginning of the section, in this case I think the opinions of an LGBTQ youth psychiatrist is more warranted for top billing than a review by The Economist or Feminist Current. Beyond that, I have no real opinion on how the content should be ordered. Bravetheif (talk) 22:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Good point--I think Turban can go first--but the other ordering is off and putting more minor sources ahead of more major ones.-Pengortm (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Feminist Current
In the "Reception" section of this article, a Feminist Current review of the book is cited and summarised. After taking a look over their site, I don't think they are a WP:RS nor do I think their inclusion in this article is WP:DUE. They do not appear to be a generally noteworthy publication, and their journalistic standards are, in my frank opinion, lacking. Furthermore, it does not appear the author of the review is particularly noteworthy or relevant either; this is her only article for the publication and I cannot find any other experience that justifies her inclusion beyond a vague notion that she's a feminist. Bravetheif (talk) 04:30, 28 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree that this doesn't seem due. The publication doesn't seem noteworthy, the author ("Megan Mackin") certainly isn't, and her viewpoint (that Shrier is right, but that she was too kind to trans people) is definitely not a significant viewpoint (see WP:FALSEBALANCE). If it was significant, we would be able to find another, reliable, source advocating it. Any content sourced to this site should be removed from the article. Sr ey Sr os talk 05:06, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Feminist Current is one of the major gender-critical/TERF outlets (4W.pub is another). I thought that the differences of opinion between Mackin and Shrier were interesting, but I don't feel too strongly about keeping or ditching the review; Feminist Current certainly doesn't have the publishing record or reach of The Economist or Commentary. Cheers, gnu 57 16:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Second sentence on rapid onset gender dysphoria
The second sentence of the article "The book has been controversial for its views on transgender identity and its support of the unproven[1][2] and contentious[3] hypothesis of rapid onset gender dysphoria.[4][5]:ch 2" seems undue. A single source (PinkNews) critiques the author's past writing on rapid onset gender dysphoria. Yes, the book has controversial opinions on trans issues and this probably should be noted in the lead (summarizing the body)--however this single source and reducing this to rapid onset gender dysphoria seems wrong and potentially to be original research. Additionally, I think we should have a better summary of the books contents which goes before the sentence noting the controversy. I tried to accomplish both of these things, but had my edits reverted with little explanation. -Pengortm (talk) 22:04, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I see that some work has been done to update and improve this sentence and its sourcing. This is appreciated, but I think should be incorporated first into the body of the article and then summarized. As written currently there is a real disconnect between the body and lead.-Pengortm (talk) 22:21, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Could you link to a diff with your proposed change? From my own reading of the book, it is entirely based on the theory of ROGD and how social media supposedly contributes to that. Considering that the lead seems fairly reasonable. Bravetheif (talk) 22:22, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not saying your reading of the book is wrong--but Wikipedia requires that this be firmly established from secondary sources. ROGD is literally not mentioned at all in the body of the article. I suggest we move the ROGD bit to the body--then look at the body and try to summarize it in the lead. Certainly the controversy surrounding this book should be summarized--but we should establish what the book is about first and then summarize the article. Here are some of my earlier diffs on this: and .-Pengortm (talk) 00:22, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have restructured the lead to attempt to incorporate your changes. Considering the better citations regarding the books basis on ROGD (which for clarity's sake I added after you started this discussion), I left that part in the lead. Bravetheif (talk) 08:54, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * @Pengortm: I agree with you that the body could benefit from more discussion of Littman's "ROGD" theory and the criticism and controversy around it, but to me it seems uncontroversial and reliably sourced that the book is based on that theory and has become controversial both for the views expressed in the text and for its support of Littman and her theory. The sourcing for the sentence you are talking about includes this and this, both of which discuss the controversy in terms of her support of the theory. Sr ey Sr os talk 00:45, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * When I first suggested the change there was only one source. I'll try to find time to review them both soon. Regardless, continues to read as odd to have information in the lead which is not elaborated on in the body. Thanks-Pengortm (talk) 01:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Please, please respect other editors in these discussions. Repeatedly trying to insert your preferred versions to the page without reaching consensus is not helping. IHateAccounts (talk) 01:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

User:ParisDakarPeräjärvi
Stop edit-warring the lead! The Turban article substantiates the claim that calling to withhold treatment is fringe, and that Shrier is doing so. A consensus on this matter has already been reached here: Talk:Irreversible_Damage Bravetheif (talk) 07:33, 29 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The Talk page you linked does not contain discussion about this. But if you are okay with it, simply adding the fact that only a minority receive this treatment (meaning other options are not "fringe" but rather the majority) is sufficient for me.ParisDakarPeräjärvi (talk) 07:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC) — ParisDakarPeräjärvi (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * It is explicitly about including Turban's claims in the lead, specifically his claim that the book is advocating for the withholding of gender-affirming care and that that treatment (or lack of it) is fringe. The fact that most children do not receive gender affirming care is not relevant to this issue. Bravetheif (talk) 07:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Is this a joke? "The fact that the treatment is not fringe is not relevant to whether the treatment is fringe"? I'm fairly sure something was lost in communication here, could you reword this?ParisDakarPeräjärvi (talk) 07:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC) — ParisDakarPeräjärvi (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Two different meanings of fringe. "Fringe" as in "fringe science", and "fringe" as in "uncommon". If what you say is true, then children receiving gender affirming medical care is fringe as in uncommon. However consensus is still held that it is an acceptable treatment, and thus Shrier's rejection of it is fringe. Bravetheif (talk) 08:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC)


 * There are many countries that simply don't offer medical affirmation, and those who do only do so for a small minority. This is not fringe in either definition. Even the sources Jack Turban claims, like The Endocrine Society guidelines, clearly show that this treatment is based exclusively on low quality evidence and is, by definition, experimental. Regardless, there was no consensus about this in the Talk page, so please stop edit-warring against any consensus.ParisDakarPeräjärvi (talk) 08:08, 29 December 2020 (UTC) — ParisDakarPeräjärvi (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * What other countries think about trans people is immaterial to this matter. They are not medical bodies and are, by their very nature, extremely political. All that matters is what the major relevant medical bodies consider, which in this case is that gender-affirming medical care is an acceptable treatment for trans children.
 * The discussion I already linked is a consensus on using fringe in the lead. The subject Turban was describing as "fringe" was Shrier's opinions withholding treatment. If you wish to contribute, then do so, but until then the consensus on the matter appears to be to include it. Bravetheif (talk) 08:15, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The discussion I already linked is a consensus on using fringe in the lead. The subject Turban was describing as "fringe" was Shrier's opinions withholding treatment. If you wish to contribute, then do so, but until then the consensus on the matter appears to be to include it. Bravetheif (talk) 08:15, 29 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Ridiculous statement - state-backed and independent medical bodies all agree the scientific basis is very weak, including the societies that endorse this treatment in Jacks blog post. The Talk page discussion is clearly on ROGD, not on the unsubstantiated claim that the book makes medical recommendations. You should not try to sneak it in under false premises, that'll definitely go against wikipedia policies.ParisDakarPeräjärvi (talk) 08:23, 29 December 2020 (UTC) — ParisDakarPeräjärvi (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Regardless of what you think about the quality of evidence supporting treatment is, the fact remains that it is accepted by most major and relevant medical bodies. The discussion on the talk page is about whether including Turban's description in the lead is WP:DUE. In doing so editors, myself included, examined the whole book and it's basis. A consensus was reached on including Turban in the, so I added it; along with the context of what he was specifically calling "fringe". That is not me "sneaking it in under false premises", and I would appreciate it if you would keep out the epithets in future discussion Bravetheif (talk) 08:36, 29 December 2020 (UTC)


 * It's not what "I" think. Every single institution and scientific review agrees here, including Jacks own sources. His article is self-refuting in this sense. A consensus for including the article for the claim "Jack doesn't like the book" is quite different from using a throwaway line in it that is refuted by his own citations. Regardless, you need to ensure it is made clear that the "fringeiness" expressed by Jack is not actually mirrored by the scientific literature or, upon closer inspection - read the guideline, respected medical institutions.ParisDakarPeräjärvi (talk) 08:44, 29 December 2020 (UTC) — ParisDakarPeräjärvi (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * To quote the title of the discussion Jack turban in the lead. To quote the next line from MJL Now, I am for calling the claims of the book, in the lead, fringe... The consensus by editors was to include. The medical associations Turban cited accepted gender-affirming care for transgender youths, making the rejection of it by Shrier fringe. The source you have cited agrees with Turban, that care should be provided to youths (which for reference means 15-24). Bravetheif (talk) 08:53, 29 December 2020 (UTC)


 * To twist that statement into supporting your edit you would need to show that the book claims that the book itself advocates for fringe treatments. It does not follow. The source I have cited disagrees with Turban in that it clearly acknowledges the evidence base as low quality. Medical treatments that are not actually evidence-based are by definition controversial. Please read the actual document.ParisDakarPeräjärvi (talk) 09:00, 29 December 2020 (UTC) — ParisDakarPeräjärvi (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * What do you mean by show that the book claims that the book itself advocates for fringe treatments? I don't think I understand what you mean. Overall, it seems you disagree with the consensus above rather than with Bravetheif's implementation of it. If you have ideas or arguments against that consensus, it would be better to discuss them above in the proper section than to do so here. Sr ey Sr os talk 09:06, 29 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The consensus was to call "the claims in the book" fringe, based on its statements about ROGD. This is being expanded to include its statements about other things, and finally to things that it doesn't say, but are guilty by association. This creates the absurd scenario where the treatment that a vast majority receive is being called "fringe", because Abigail Shrier said she thought some other treatment was bad. This is so far from the Talk consensus that making a claim that it's part of it makes no sense. If someone wants to add something new outside of the consensus, it's up to them to add it to that discussion.ParisDakarPeräjärvi (talk) 09:21, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Stop misrepresenting the position. No one is calling not receiving gender-affirming care fringe. If a doctor does not believe it is warrented, there is nothing wrong with her not recommending it. What I, and the Turban article, are calling "fringe" is the outright rejection of that form of care Bravetheif (talk) 09:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The literal phrase you've inserted is "withholding gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth, a fringe treatment". Something a) the book does not do, and b) clearly suggests that the norm is actually fringe. You've made it clear in other pages on Wikipedia that you have a clear goal in mind for this page which does not actually regard any external source, and now you're saying that verbatim quoting you is misrepresenting your position. I've asked you to clarify this in the text to avoid confusing the reader about what the common treatment path actually is.ParisDakarPeräjärvi (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2020 (UTC) — ParisDakarPeräjärvi (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Your behaviour in this thread is borderline WP:HA. Please stop. My personal image of what this article should be is not relevant to this discussion; all that is relevant is the consensus of other editors and whether the content added is due and supported. I could just as easily say that you have a clear agenda, but I'm not. I would appreciate you doing the same for me.
 * The book clearly advocates against providing gender affirming care. To quote you, it "shit-talks" it (Special:Diff/996934963). Whether or not most people receive this treatment is immaterial to the fact that this is a fringe position. Few children receive surgery, but generally campaigning against child surgery is also a fringe position. It doesn't need to be qualified with "well most kids don't get surgery", because that is not what is at issue. In fact doing so would be a WP:FALSEBALANCE. Bravetheif (talk) 00:23, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The book clearly advocates against providing gender affirming care. To quote you, it "shit-talks" it (Special:Diff/996934963). Whether or not most people receive this treatment is immaterial to the fact that this is a fringe position. Few children receive surgery, but generally campaigning against child surgery is also a fringe position. It doesn't need to be qualified with "well most kids don't get surgery", because that is not what is at issue. In fact doing so would be a WP:FALSEBALANCE. Bravetheif (talk) 00:23, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I already have a source making the analysis that the book is advocating for fringe treatments: the Turban article. Furthermore, the source you cited very clearly supports gender-affirming care for transgender youths (see section 1.2). Please quote or reference the section that contradicts that Bravetheif (talk) 09:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The claim being made is that by definition, rejecting something which is based exclusively on low quality evidence is not controversial. I've clarified this twice. If you need further explanation of the scientific process, please ask specific questions.ParisDakarPeräjärvi (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2020 (UTC) — ParisDakarPeräjärvi (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Canvassing/NotABallot box wording
Thanks @IHateAccounts for noticing the offwiki canvassing, and for adding the box; it can't hurt. I altered the wording a bit to read better, especially for new users, but there was one thing I wanted to ask you about. The tweet you linked seemed to be from an individual unaffiliated with Shrier, although it was a reply to one of her tweets. Is there something I'm missing (a retweet? a like?) from Shrier? If not, perhaps we should word the box text as just "someone asked you to" or the like, as not to accuse the author of asking people to change the article if she hasn't. Sr ey Sr os talk 09:32, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have tried to collect them, but it appears some tweets are being deleted and now deadlink . An account "Gigilarue" also tried to edit this page on December 9th as well . IHateAccounts (talk) 16:50, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have been informed that providing external links to specific twitter accounts is frowned upon per the WP:OUTING policy and that is the reason that part of my comment above was redacted. Suffice to say, it appears that external links that I mention having been deleted above come from twitter accounts that have some involvement in/with advertising campaigns for the book, and could likely cause WP:COI concerns for edits made here by them or on their WP:CANVASSED behalf. IHateAccounts (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, if the accounts are affiliated with ad campaigns for the book that makes sense. Thanks. Sr ey Sr os talk 21:10, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have to object to the way keeps trying to even mess with the wording of the notification. This WP:POVPUSH behavior is getting quite ridiculous. IHateAccounts (talk) 14:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Has the author herself been encouraging people to become involved with the Wikipedia article about the book? The link in the notaballot template shows some other person replying to the author, so Crossroads' concern seems reasonable to me. Frankly I don't think the exact wording of the template really matters that much–as long as it conveys that pile-on voting without policy-backed arguments isn't helpful, where the person was canvassed from and by whom is somewhat inconsequential. I actually didn't even know you could pass a parameter in to specify where the canvassing might be coming from until I saw it done on this page, I usually just slap it on talk pages without any modification. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * To clarify per the question from SreySros as well: the author "liked" other replies to her, now deleted from twitter sometime after I put up the initial NotABallot notice, that were from an account connected to an advertising campaign for the book as I noted above. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:31, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I see. I have to agree that that's not sufficient for us to accuse the author of encouraging Wikipedia disruption; the template should stay as it is. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

New review in The Times (of London)
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/irreversible-damage-by-abigail-shrier-review-resisting-the-transgender-craze-8mzrt3gk9 (paywalled, unfortunately) &#42;Dan T.* (talk) 20:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions, temporary full protection
This page is subject to discretionary sanctions. I've temporarily fully protected the article for two days because of edit-warring. —valereee (talk) 13:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Protection has expired, please ping if it needs to be reinstated for longer. —valereee (talk) 21:08, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Where is the content?
Has this page been vandalized? There is no section describing what the book is actually about, but there is an extremely long controversy section. What's going on here? Miserlou (talk) 08:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Articles are a work in progress. You are always free to contribute (WP:SOFIXIT). &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 14:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

The Factora statement
Is this sentence "In Them, the writer James Factora stated that almost every claim in the publisher's description of the book was a "blatant lie"[34] supported by a second reputable person on the subject? It's such a broad presumption by someone without qualifications and thus I think it should be removed - unless their is another rel source supporting that broad & fantastic claim. I understood Factora's article to be an opinion piece - but some other editor claims it isn't - so there. CatCafe (talk) 00:16, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a clearly attributed opinion summarising a review from a significant reliable source, so due weight. — Bilorv ( talk ) 00:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)


 * It's an online article about Target banning the book, then circles around claiming things about the book, then returns back to accuse Target of "pinkwashing" and labelling someone or other of being "transphobes". A review exclusively? Or opinion piece? Either way the author reveals a pretty one-sided POV if they're a book reviewer, but I guess writers come in all shapes and forms . CatCafe (talk) 00:52, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

"most reputable medical organisations"
Can you point me to which of the five sources cited in the last sentence of the lead makes the conclusion about "most reputable medical organizations"? I worry, like that this might be original research of pointing to several medical organizations' positions and then making the editorial conclusion that this represents most reputable medical organizations. Not saying this is untrue--but we need clear sources stating it. Thank you. -Pengortm (talk) 16:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Huh, I would imagine that it wouldn't be difficult to find a source listing those organizations as the reputable ones in this field, but my quick Googling hasn't turned up anything. AFAIK there are no medical organizations that support Shrier's arguments other than perhaps some anti-LGBT hate groups like NARTH or ACPeds. Unless someone else can find a source, I agree with Pengortm that the wording ought to change. I think the best way forward would be to word the sentence in the positive rather than the negative, maybe something like:
 * She advocates for withholding gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth, a fringe position which has been rejected by the American Psychiatric Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Endocrine Society, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and the World Professional Association for Transgender Health.
 * That's worse visually because of all the wikilinks, but I think it solves the problem and sticks to the sources. Sr ey Sr os talk 01:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, this proposed wording looks good to me. — Bilorv ( talk ) 12:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The proposed language looks good to me. Newimpartial (talk) 15:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You know what? I'd like to support the change, but what worries me is that the very next thing Pengortm or someone else is going to do is start arguing WP:FALSEBALANCE stuff about how the anti-LGBT hate groups with orwellian names designed to make people think they're legitimate, such as ACPeds, deserve to be listed as if they were mainstream "medical organizations" that support this fringe nonsense. The WP:MEDRS issues with sourcing in the article are bad enough without adding WP:FRINGE, Teach the Controversy-style nonsense too. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC) - strike through because sockpuppet account
 * Yes I support the proposal [by] and WP:AGF of Pengortm. Wow IHateAccounts, you still continue to impress me with your extensive knowledge of WP policy considering you've only been on WP for less than 3 months. Good on you. CatCafe (talk) 20:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have seen people blocked and sanctioned for similar hounding when they continually accuse somebody of being a sockpuppet in inappropriate forums. If you have evidence then you need to present it clearly and concisely in the appropriate place, such as WP:SPI. Otherwise, know that you taking a risk of being sanctioned on the grounds of WP:NPA every time you make a comment like this. — Bilorv ( talk ) 21:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Bilorv, I never said that, you're just presuming again. Nor has it ever crossed my mind that the editor may be a sockpuppet, as you suggest. Perhaps you can take it up on WP:SPI and we can get back to talking about the edit suggestion here. Thanks. CatCafe (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * To other editors: User talk:IHateAccounts is the other location at which CatCafe insinuated that IHateAccounts is a sockpuppet. — Bilorv ( talk ) 22:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * And you're presuming again Bilorv, a reference to sock-puppetry was never mentioned there, your suggestion above is the first time 'sockpuppet' has been raised. Get your facts straight please. Please raise your "sockpuppet" allegations on that Talk page you linked to, then I will discuss it with you, not here. CatCafe (talk) 22:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)\
 * I made the change to the article using the proposed wording, with one small difference (changing withholding... for transgender youth to withholding... from transgender youth). Hopefully this is acceptable. Sr ey Sr os talk 00:52, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sreysros, you also changed in the sentence the original phrasing "not currently supported" to "has been rejected". I don't believe there was concensus on that amendment. CatCafe (talk) 01:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That was what I proposed, and you earlier said that you supported the proposal. The reason that I worded it that way was to phrase it in the positive. It is almost vacuously true to say that her arguments are not supported by an organization (i.e. we could truthfully say that her arguments are not supported by Warner Brothers or the ASPCA), but the sources are specifically rejecting the practice she endorses. In my view wording it this way sticks better to the sources. Sr ey Sr os talk 01:17, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * OK Sreysros, I thought it was plain English and would not be extrapolated by another editor to be support for them. So I will amend it to: "Yes I support the proposal [by] and WP:AGF of Pengortm", as that's who I was referring to. If I had meant another editor, I would have mentioned them by name. Sreysros perhaps your edit needs to be WP:BRD until it's resolved. CatCafe (talk) 01:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh I'm sorry, I figured you meant my proposal. Did Pengortm make a proposal? I don't really see one in their post. If there's more discussion to be had on the wording I have no problem with reverting until we reach a consensus. Newimpartial and Bilorv, were you referring to my proposal? I apologize if I misinterpreted your messages. Sr ey Sr os talk 01:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I was supporting the wording you proposed, SreySros. I also see a general consensus for the proposal, so I wouldn't favor reverting the language. Newimpartial (talk) 02:08, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You are correct that I was referring to your proposal. I also read CatCafe's comment in the way you interpreted—it is strange that they would say that they support a "proposal" indented underneath your proposal when Pengortm didn't make a proposal (but raised an issue). — Bilorv ( talk ) 10:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)