Talk:Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy/Archive 2

See also link
I gotta say, I'm rather baffled to see two experienced editors work to revert a see also wikilink after some IP removed it. Let's look at what WP:SEEALSO says: Contents: A bulleted list of internal links to related Wikipedia articles....One purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics; however, articles linked should be related to the topic of the article. It is a link to another Wikipedia article and is for navigation. Claims of "undue" do not apply; there are no statements being made by the link other than the fact that this Wikipedia article is related enough to this topic. Given that the book is entirely about ROGD (albeit Shrier's take does vary from Littman's, but not enough to claim it isn't related) and is stable, untagged, and reports the criticism, and hence editors seem to be happy with it, I can't imagine any policy or guideline based reason not to link it. We don't hinder reader navigation for any of the reasons given. Crossroads -talk- 22:03, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

See Also Book Link

There is an article on this subject, [] which was linked in the See Also section. There appear to be ideologically motivated edits to remove the link to this book and it's caused a revert war, so we should discuss it here. I think the link should remain, it's innocuous, the related article is fully fleshed out, it's relevant and isn't prominent or unduly weighted in the article since it's at the bottom of the article in the See Also section. WP:NPOV specifically says that the See also section can be used for this purpose. The book itself is also related to the controversy because it's publishing was similarly controversial. I don't think there's a good faith argument against including a hyperlink, but if somebody has a different opinion this is the place to discuss it. Miserlou (talk) 22:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

, though as you can see I do agree with you the link is appropriate, be careful not to revert again if you are reverted, per WP:3RR. To everyone in general, the stable version of the article and status quo contains the link. So why should it be removed based on policy? Crossroads -talk- 22:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Also: since this heading is on the identical issue as mine, I have combined them. Please be sure not to accuse editors of ideological motivation on article talk pages. Crossroads -talk- 22:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)


 * The section has been blanked again by a user not participating in this discussion and ignoring established WP policy: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rapid_onset_gender_dysphoria_controversy&oldid=1036994250 Miserlou (talk) 22:33, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , discuss. Please support your claim that "That isn't what "See also" is for" with reference to policy or guidelines. Links to related articles is exactly what See also is for. Whether the topic is disagreeable is irrelevant. The article itself is NPOV and notes the criticisms of the book, so what's the issue? Crossroads -talk- 22:38, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Seriously? It's a see also link. Not text. Not a reference. It's literally a link to another of our own articles! This is beyond absurd at this point. Crossroads -talk- 22:47, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, looks like that was a 3RR violation. Are they now forbidden from making that change again? Can they at least still chime in on discussion? It also looks like this isn't the first time you've been involved in a revert war with them before: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Newimpartial#Notice_of_edit_warring_noticeboard_discussion . I'd like for them or to weigh in with their point of view though so we can try to come to some consensus, edit warring over something so trivial is tiresome. Miserlou (talk) 22:56, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * They have maxed out 3RR and if they revert again it's a violation then. Crossroads -talk- 23:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Ummm, I didn't violate anything. And I don't see "See also" links from Antisemitism to Mein Kampf or from Race and intelligence to The Bell Curve; I don't understand why you think this one controversy is so special that it deserves a "See also" link to the WP article on a book intended to inflame the controversy. Newimpartial (talk) 00:11, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, that was a fast Godwin's Law invocation. As a random counterexample, the article for Minutemen (Band) does have a See also that links to We Jam Econo, because it's clearly related - a thing about the thing. As a second example, the second article you linked to _actually does_ link to the second book you mentioned. But obviously, we don't make good, neutral articles by cherry picking examples, we follow the rules, which were mentioned above and not addressed. Miserlou (talk) 00:21, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * There is a policy-relevant difference between a contextualized link in the main text of an article and a decontextualized link in "See also". I am objecting to the latter. Newimpartial (talk) 00:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know which policy you're referring to. All of the policies I've seen seem to say that it is perfectly reasonable to link related articles which aren't mentioned in the body text in the See Also section, as this makes it easy for readers to learn more about a topic. If you'd like to improve the article by working the link into a body paragraph so it can be removed from the See also section, that sounds like a great way to improve this article. Miserlou (talk) 01:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

By the way do you think the author of irreversible damage is a transphobe or is this one of those cases of I just don't like it?CycoMa (talk) 00:26, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The author of Irreversible damage is opposed to the medical consensus on gender-affirming care, supports legislation that is objectively harmful to trans youth, and aggressively misgenders her research subjects. I am not particularly interested in her motives for doing so. Newimpartial (talk) 00:31, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Um I read the article and she isn’t against the consensus. She was merely accused of going against the consensus.
 * Also the book has been called controversial. That means there is some discourse and debate. Books like the bell curve isn’t controversial.CycoMa (talk) 00:38, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, that last farcical statement should disqualify you from editing on "race and intelligence", which is another of WP's discretionary sanctions areas. So that's a thing.
 * If you had read the Irreversible damage Talk page as well, you would have seen the very clear evidence that she does in fact oppose the consensus. If the current version of that article doesn't lead you to that conclusion, it is because of the tendency for certain editors to violate NPOV requirements by changing factual statements to "mere accusations". Newimpartial (talk) 00:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Um understand what controversial means. It means giving rise or likely to give rise to public disagreement. Fascism being viewed as a bad ideology isn’t controversial to a majority of people in the western world. Evolution is no longer controversial to any biologist in any form and only controversial to religious people.
 * Trans issues is still controversial to many people and academics. There are many respectable academics who praised her and others who rejected it.CycoMa (talk) 01:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding I don't see "See also" links from Antisemitism to Mein Kampf or from Race and intelligence to The Bell Curve, both of those topic articles link to their respective book articles in the prose. This is Wikipedia; we are supposed to build the web of links to appropriate articles. I'm going to find a source and get it mentioned in the prose. If that gets reverted, it's RfC time. I'll be sure to post a notice at all the relevant policy pages. Crossroads -talk- 02:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * As long as the language of the mention is NPOV and not whitewash, you won't get any backwash from me. Newimpartial (talk) 02:59, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I added something. Short and to the point, with sources with opposite opinions on the book itself. I added that the book is controversial. Aside from that, there is no need to reinvent the wheel at this article by adding a coatrack about the book. The article already handles that well enough and we've all sunk enough hours into that already. Crossroads -talk- 03:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I support the "see also" link to Irreversible Damage. It is appropriate, for exactly the reasons cited in an edit comment by "clearly fulfills MOS:SEEALSO: it is relevant, and it 'reflects the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic'." Again quoting Mathglot, "The solution is not to remove it because you don't like it, but to augment the See also section with more links. Stop the warring; get busy with finding other links to add here." Lwarrenwiki (talk) 03:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Per MOS:NAVLIST, we generally don't include articles that are already linked in the body (like Irreversible Damage already is). I don't have an especially strong opinion about this but IMO "see also" links sections are often difficult to come to a consensus on because the decision on what to link is incredibly subjective; I would prefer to leave ID out if it is a matter of much contention. —0xf8e8 💿 (talk) 01:51, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't see that it was already linked, and if that's the case, then 0xF8E8 is right and generally it would not be included, per MOS:NOTSEEALSO. That said, that's a guideline, and there may be overriding reasons to include it, but given the controversial nature of this whole topic, some balance should be achieved. Mathglot (talk) 07:18, 7 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Support inclusion of the book in See also. Clearly meets the inclusion criteria at MOS:SEEALSO. Rather than waste endless words here, those who don't like the book's conclusions (like, say, me) should expand the See also with other articles. Mathglot (talk) 09:35, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * But the book is already linked in the body of the article. Per MOS:NAVLIST, it should not be included a second time. Newimpartial (talk) 12:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)


 * This discussion is mooted by the recent addition of text about and a wikilink to the book in the article body, since MOS:NOTSEEALSO applies at a higher CONLEVEL than this thread. If the text and link is removed from the body (for example, if there is not consensus that the book is accorded sufficient weight in RS coverage of the ROGD theory, which is a separate matter from how much weight the ROGD theory may be given in RS about the book), I am inclined to think the link is OK. -sche (talk) 06:14, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Giovanardi et al.
I see you've added a quote there, but it doesn't support the claim. Giovanardi et. al only make vague comment that some respondents mentioned traits that could be described under the "rapid onset gender dysphoria" banner, and they cite it mainly to point out how we're very much unsure what that might mean. It doesn't imply these clinicians surveyed felt it was consistent, nor anything in particular about how consistent overall what Littman described was with their experiences. "Depicted with" is a little ambiguous so I understand how you might blur the claims mentally, but try to be more careful about ensuring the text directly supports a claim -- none of clinicians quoted in the article, which is what they're basing that sentence on, mention ROGD.—0xf8e8 💿 (talk) 01:37, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I know how WP:V works quite well, thank you. My understanding is that the authors of the paper are also clinicians, and they did make the connection, so we report that. Even if they weren't, it could simply be moved to the subsequent sentence. Removal was certainly not justified. Crossroads -talk- 18:22, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm tempted to quote The Big Lebowski here: that's just like, your opinion, man. The source only connects it to ROGD in a plainly trivial way that's not useful for encyclopedic coverage of the subject—they barely make a "connection" at all! It's a one-off use of a term in scare quotes to highlight that some traits in the survey might vaguely fit under the amorphous banner of ROGD. There is absolutely no indication this represents their view of whether Littman's hypothesis is consistent with their experiences or others, and pretending otherwise is misrepresenting the source. In general, we shouldn't attempt be including content on the basis of primary surveys like this to make extremely contentious claims about what medical consensus looks like. There lies the pathway to fringe nonsense like homeopathy and race science. If you would like to talk about inclusion in some other form, then discuss so here rather than drive-by reverting. With regards to this absolute nonsense: there is no consensus in favor of the material (age is not consensus). Your tendentious belief that material you support is "the status quo" is just that, a belief. Don't pretend otherwise. —0xf8e8 💿 (talk) 19:10, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Your claim that the source covers it in a "trivial" manner is just, like, your opinion. Your reading of the source is quite tortured. Regarding your claim my edit summary is "absolute nonsense"; no, your understanding of WP:CON is way off, and this has been explained below. You can't claim that long-standing text has never been the status quo simply because you don't like it. Crossroads -talk- 19:29, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * WP;ONUS is a policy. WP:BRD isn't. Text that sits in the article for six months without ever being discussed doesn't have CONSENSUS for inclusion. Newimpartial (talk) 19:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:CONSENSUS is also policy. That includes implicit consensus and the status quo. This article is highly watched. It didn't just sneak in there. See below. Crossroads -talk- 19:40, 6 August 2021 (UTC)


 * If a statement isn't supported by the reference cited, then the issue goes beyond WP:ONUS being on those who want to include it; the "full name" of the ONUS policy is "verifiability does not guarantee inclusion", but if the information has failed verification (not in citation), non-verifiability guarantees non-inclusion, because inclusion requires verifiability. If what's verifiable is different from what was stated in the article, then let's (re)write a statement that does reflect the sources, as 0xf8e8 and others are discussing also in the section below. -sche (talk) 06:37, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Other researchers' comments
Newimpartial and 0xF8E8, stop WP:TAGTEAMing to remove long-standing, sourced content. Follow WP:CON and leave the status quo during discussion. What you are both doing is introducing major WP:POV to the article by purging reliable academic sources that note that other researchers have seen a phenomenon like that Littman described, specifically mentioning her research. This is in line with a highly politicized activist narrative (see WP:NOTADVOCACY) that there is absolutely nothing to see here and that the whole thing is made up. While some may believe this, the academic sources are clear that this is not true in that several of them note a phenomenon matching her description worth investigating. WP:CENSORing this is not allowed and not supported by any policy or guideline. If it is true that it "materially misrepresents the sources in an obvious biased way", WP:SOFIXIT; tweak the article text to match what the sources supposedly actually say then. It's also unjustified to remove the sentence from the lead which is now supported by sources which aren't presently being disputed. It's also beyond me why the alternative "reasons for the observed increased incidence" are being removed. What other researchers are saying is not being covered up. Crossroads -talk- 18:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Query - what exactly do you think "rapid onset" means, in the title of this article's topic? And isn't it a defining element? Newimpartial (talk) 18:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:TAGTEAM is not a general-purpose synonym for "two editors disagree with me." There is no consorting going on, just people recognizing the sources don't say what you're using them to say. The belief using sources in a way others believe materially misrepresents them to support a fringe belief unsupported by most major medical organizations is necessary to stop the evul "highly politicized activist narrative" is noted, but it's...irrelevant here. If you would like to include the material in some other way, that's great! Discuss it here rather than insisting others must do the work of defending the material for you. —0xf8e8 💿 (talk) 19:10, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * To Newimpartial: huh? Why is this relevant? Is the claim that the sources must use an exact phrase? Articles are about topics, not phrases; any such claim is WP:WIKILAWYERING and unsupported by policy. For example, this academic article you are fighting to remove states, a new developmental pathway is proposed involving youth with postpuberty adolescent-onset transgender histories, and cites Littman. That is clearly about this topic. Regarding your claim that This content was added in December without discussion; the WP:ONUS is therefore against inclusion, as there was never consensus to include, do remember that December was over half a year ago and see WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS: Wikipedia consensus usually occurs implicitly. An edit has presumed consensus unless it is disputed or reverted. And WP:NOCON: a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. The WP:STABLE version contains the content.
 * 0xF8E8, the sources say the same things that the text says, and there has been ample opportunity for you two to tweak the text to fix any supposed issue, but you've both opted to shove the sources under the rug. That there might be a phenomenon of this description of as yet unknown causes is not fringe. The sources are clear about this. What is fringe is to say it definitely exists and use it in diagnosis and treatment, which the article is also clear about.
 * Questions for you two. Is it your position that (1) the removed articles should not be cited at all? And if so, what consistent, NPOV, policy- or guideline-based standard permits that? (2) That the lead should not say anything about other researchers' views of the phenomenon? How do you square this with WP:NPOV stating to represent all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic? How do you propose to cover these sources? Crossroads -talk- 19:24, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * But they don't say the same thing the text says. We are making an analytic or synthetic claim based on primary sources like attributing sources like their experiences with their patient populations "was consistent with what was described in Littman's research." To correctly represent the source, we would have to say something like Giovanardi et al.'s survey of clincians in Italy found some clinicians described traits like a lack of outward history of gender incongruence, traits mentioned in the Littman survey (open to workshopping that but you probably get the gist -- don't make contentious claims about whether something is overall "consistent", make claims about what the traits in common were, as reported in the survey. Similarly, don't use WP:OR to connect the Swedish op-eds to ROGD when they don't mention that -- instead, look for a survey etc that specifically makes that connection and then explicitly attribute it to that author. I'm not opposed to some form of inclusion of some of the same material made clear who's saying what, but as is I feel best to start from scratch. I'm not looking to war about it, but I'd rather we be way more careful about sticking to the sources than we are. —0xf8e8 💿 (talk) 20:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I wrote a fairly long answer to this post a couple of hours ago and completely lost it in an edit conflict. But to answer the paragraph directed to me by Crossroads, the topic of this article is "rapid onset dysphoria", defined in the lede as suddenly manifesting symptoms of gender dysphoria and self-identifying as transgender simultaneously with other children in their peer group. Sources discussing dysphoria where the onset is not "sudden" and does not show signs of supposed social contagion is not relevant to this article. The topic here is not, as Crossroads and KoenigHall appear to believe, "ROGD and anything else about which Littman is cited by other authors".
 * In particular, because subsequent studies in which neither "rapid onset" nor "social contagion" are described are not discussing the phenomenon that is this article's topic, it is particularly inappropriate to insert them (using an "enemy of my enemy" POV) in a way that makes them appear to "support" Littman's ROGD hypothesis, which by any reasonable interpretation they do not. Newimpartial (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

What do you think the text in question has to say about her hypothesis, in particular? I see nada. Newimpartial (talk) 03:12, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Crossroads version was the status quo edit and should probably remain in the article while discussion occurs. –– 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲  talk  19:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * But WP;ONUS is a policy; WP:BRD isn't. Text that sits in the article for six months without ever being discussed doesn't have CONSENSUS for inclusion. Newimpartial (talk) 19:39, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:CONSENSUS is also policy and does not support using ONUS that way. I explained this just above: This is a highly watched article; it's not like the material snuck in there. Crossroads -talk- 19:47, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it is not appropriate to revert again after someone restores a status quo and starts a talk page discussion. You had the right to remove it, and Crossroads had the right to restore it, but that's where it should have ended, as Crossroads started a talk page discussion. –– 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲  talk  19:51, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Needless to say, I disagree. My sense is that the content in question did "sneak in", at a time when even worse content was being added to the article and disputed. I simply disagree that WP:BRD is the best practice for content that was added without explicit consensus, a position I believe Crossroads has supported elsewhere. Newimpartial (talk) 19:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a fair point. I think BRD is a best practice and I'd love to see it followed here. I also hold with those that think ONUS is meant to apply to newly added disputed content. Interestingly, Crossroads recently argued the opposite in this discussion. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:54, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * In the context of my comment there as a whole, I was saying that it shouldn't be changed because of the many low-traffic articles where material lingers unnoticed for long periods of time. That doesn't apply here; it was definitely noticed, but opportunism is going on to get rid of it. Crossroads -talk- 20:29, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think the argument "Undiscussed content should be deemed to have silent CONSENSUS after six months, except for what I Crossroads consider to be low-traffic articles and in those cases 'silence implies consent' never applies" is based on policy in any way. Sounds like special pleading. TBH. Newimpartial (talk) 21:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes it most certainly does have consensus, per WP:EDITCONSENSUS. WP:ONUS was satisfied months ago. This page has 66 watchers, and if not one of them saw fit either to revert or to change it in the last six months, it clearly is the consensus version. Attempts to say it isn't because it wasn't discussed on the TP are simply mistaken, and there should not be attempts now to claim it doesn't have consensus so someone can change it contrary to policy while discussion is now going on. Mathglot (talk) 07:12, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I just re-read WP:CONSENSUS, and don't see anything there about using a number of months of silent acceptance, or a number of page watchers, as metrics to determine inclusions that have achieved consensus. Perhaps your interpretation is mistaken? Newimpartial (talk) 12:11, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Please explain WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS in your own words then. We don't wikilawyer exact numbers, but it is clear that at some point implicit consensus kicks in. Crossroads -talk- 04:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:EDITCONSENSUS opens with Wikipedia consensus usually occurs implicitly. An edit has presumed consensus unless it is disputed or reverted. The edits in question are being actively disputed and have been reverted; I don't see anything in EDITCONSENSUS supporting your contention that they once had consensus. Newimpartial (talk) 03:12, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I definitely don't agree, but think this discussion is rapidly devolving into unproductive warring so I don't intend to press the point. The primary edits adding the material were made very recently back in December by KoenigHall, an account blocked for pushing the same kind of stuff over at Gender dysphoria. I think there is a strong case that much of the material is undue, and any potential inclusion needs to be carefully examined to ensure it's correctly representing the opinions of its authors. I'm taking a stab at some proposals in my reply to Crossroads above; let me know what you think. —0xf8e8 💿 (talk) 20:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * KoenigHall was only blocked for 2 weeks, and that was for edit warring, not for content as such. They haven't edited recently but are not currently blocked.As for the proposals, I believe this should be made down here where there are more editors. Please propose how to cover all the removed sources together, and how to summarize other researchers' comments on the hypothesis in the lead. Crossroads -talk- 20:29, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, yes, when I say "pushing this kind of stuff" four-plus-reverts-in-a-day edit warring on ARBGS topics is largely what I mean (it's less about KH in particular, just feel we should be clear that adjacent material has been that contentious in the past). Your comment abt "all the removed sources" gets to another angle of the issue: are all the pieces cited previously WP:DUE and germane to the topic of ROGD? I figure clear cases like from e.g. Zucker are, but I wonder about the more tangentially connected ones like the Swedish op-eds in Lakartidningen, which don't seem to mention Littman or ROGD more generally. Like, is what Landen or Waehre is speaking of "ROGD"? Maybe, but they're not claiming it is. I know we're not explicitly citing it for exactly that, but it seems comparable to 160 wars around the world; a basic claim (some opinion pieces/reports have noticed an increase in AFAB referrals) juxtaposed with another in such a way that the whole is not the sum of its parts. I'm unsure if or how such a source might be appropriately included. In your view (though I understand you'd like to include all the sources) which are the most important to emphasize? I think that would probably help in whittling out the best proposal. —0xf8e8 💿 (talk) 21:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If the sources cite Littman and say something substantive about her hypothesis, then it should be included here. The point that they see such a phenomenon (or however you want to call it) should be included if they make it. I'll have to check those foreign-language sources later. And "Other researchers have since remarked on a much increased incidence of youth seeking care for dysphoria, the cause of which remains to be established" should be returned to the lead (once full protection expires) per NPOV and because it wasn't based solely on sources being removed. Lastly, this source in English is most definitely relevant for the reasons I gave. Crossroads -talk- 22:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * But the topic of this article is the supposed rapid-onset dysphoria hypothesis, not "anything people have cited Littman about". If people have cited Littman - but not about the controversial rapid-onset hypothesis - that is out of scope for this article. The fact that you and KoenigHall turned this article into some kind of a WP:COATRACK in 2020, and other editors only removed the very worst of the COATRACKing, does not mean there is CONSENSUS - or any kind of policy support - for the COATRACKing that remains. Pointing out to people that they were too tired or distracted to remove something in the past does not mean they consented to its inclusion, FFS. And whatever the situation was in the past, the content in question most certainly carries no consensus now. Newimpartial (talk) 12:11, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The strawman arguing for "anything people have cited Littman about" is now torn apart, but I mentioned sources that said "something substantive about her hypothesis". You shouldn't be accusing me of such things; I don't recall having written hardly anything in this article. And COATRACKs are off-topic by definition, and that text isn't. Crossroads -talk- 04:32, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. I am not seeing any convincing reason to remove this. Does not appear to be synth to point out that gender disphoria is increasing according to some sources. It would be synth to make broader claims about this meaning of this increase for ROGD if not in the source sufficiently. -Pengortm (talk) 23:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Please stop reverting this disputed edit to your preferred version. Wait until there is a consensus. Everyone should keep in mind the discretionary sanctions active for this article. –– 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲  talk  01:55, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If you folks continue to edit war over this content, full protection will return to this article. Come to a consensus so that this is not necessary. Liz Read! Talk! 02:28, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's academically sourced and provides clearly relevant context to the main article, as it's the question which the central hypothesis is attempting to explain. It doesn't need to be more than a line or two. As an aside, it's been fascinating seeing tempers in this corner of Wikipedia, and it would be very nice if we could all assume a little more good faith, though I suppose it's the headbutting that leads to good, neutral and encyclopedic articles.Miserlou (talk) 02:53, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The thing is, the text attributed to these sources is Several additional reports published since the PLOS article republication note a novel large adolescent cohort presenting with gender dysphoria, which is placed in a section called Reactions#Academic, in a paragraph that opens, Some clinicians who provide care for gender dysphoric youth state that what was described in Littman's research is consistent with their patient population. This is purest SYNTH (if not bait and switch), since it presents this material as if it were addressing the topic of the article, namely ROGD and, enemy of my enemy style, as though they were responding to the academic criticism presented in the previous paragraph. In reality, nothing of the kind is occurring. If the point of the inclusion is supposed to be, "ROGD may not be a real thing, but more youngn's have been self-identifying as Trans", then there may be an appropriate way to do that in this article. The misleading insertion that I reverted isn't it. Newimpartial (talk) 11:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * None of this justifies the removal of the text from the lead, but anyway. The disputed text has now been re-written and some sources have been removed for not specifically citing Littman or mentioning ROGD. I see no reason not to work from this now. One that does I left behind because it was the one currently offering alternative explanations, because that point being made is more neutral if non-SYNTH academic sources exist for it, which I suspect they do. Crossroads -talk- 18:43, 10 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Regarding the question of whether content has edit consensus if no-one had access / time to check whether the source cited for it actually supports it, and just assumed good faith that other editors adding content with a source would be accurately representing that source, ehh... I see content removed from articles long after its addition on the grounds that the source cited doesn't actually support it upon inspection. (Heck, we had a whole article about some a Michigan-Canadian war that cited various references, for years, before it was outright deleted because the references didn't support it.) In this case, it seems like the content could simply be reworked, for instance in the manner 0xf8e8 suggested above, rather than entirely removed, but the existing content can't stay without either the addition of sources that support it or not in source tags to (hopefully) attract the addition of such sources, or rewording to what is in the currently provided sources. -sche (talk) 21:40, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I already rewrote it: Crossroads -talk- 22:14, 10 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Regarding the criticism sentence of the lead, it has to reflect the body, which states scientists, social activist groups and by professional organizations (and has extensive citations from multiple sources to reflect this.) It is inappropriate and inaccurate to suggest in the lead that the criticism came solely from activists. --Aquillion (talk) 22:37, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Which social activist groups? All the sources are clear that it is 'transgender activists', most notably Science. "Social activists" is vague and confusing for no good reason. I don't see any groups (in the sense of activist organizations) named either. Lead material cannot be WP:OR. It is also inappropriate to say it was "criticized by scientists" like all scientists were against it. The criticism from some scientists and from professional orgs. came well after the PLOS One re-review. There is also no need to state anything new in the lead about a vague 'professional orgs' because the 2021 statement by the APAs and others is already in the lead. Given the extremely controversial nature of this topic, lead citations would be the best way to go. I see no reason to attempt to summarize sources in ways they do not themselves and thus commit OR. Crossroads -talk- 22:53, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Research published 15 November 2021
A paper was published in The Journal of Pediatrics yesterday, testing the hypothesis of ROGD. Quotation from the discussion section We did not find support within a clinical population for a new etiologic phenomenon of “ROGD” during adolescence. Among adolescents under age 16 seen in specialized gender clinics, associations between more recent gender knowledge and factors hypothesized to be involved in ROGD were either not statistically significant, or were in the opposite direction to what would be hypothesized. I'm still getting to grips with all of the nuances of WP:MEDRS however I think this is citable in the article, at the very least within the academic reactions section, though I'm not entirely sure how to phrase/word that. Thoughts? Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC)


 * The first actual piece of clinical science on the subject looking at patients and not based on polls given to parents. This study should really be given prominence somewhere in the article and then other clinical research that comes out in the future can be added to the section made for that. Silver  seren C 03:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep, absolutely include, this is a very strong source. Loki (talk) 04:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding MEDRS, while neither this nor Littman's article would be used at an article like gender dysphoria, where there are plenty of reviews to use instead, we can summarize and cite this here. WP:MEDDATE notes that the rules may need to be relaxed in areas where few reviews are published, and the ROGD controversy certainly falls under that category. Crossroads -talk- 07:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah cool! I wasn't sure if MEDDATE could be used in that way. I'm glad that this paper gives some needed clinical oversight of the theory and can be added. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added it. Further amends and discussion welcome. (And I wouldn't worry too much about MEDRS, if we always followed it to the letter then this article wouldn't exist at all.) The Land (talk) 18:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Awesome! I'm still getting to grips with the somewhat stricter sourcing requirements for medical articles, and the caveats like MEDDATE that allow for flexibility in circumstances like this. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that basically, we are not treating ROGD as a medical phenomenon. According to the MDRS rules, we'd have to follow the lead of some national or international medical body to do so, and to quote mainly review articles that themselves synthesise high-quality clinical evidence. With ROGD there is one national medical body that says ROGD is *not* a thing, no review articles at all, and only one clinical study which also says that ROGD is *not* a thing. MEDRS is not really well suited to situations where the only available evidence on an article's subject says that the alleged condition does not exist at all. The Land (talk) 09:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It honestly feels like FRINGE would apply more than MEDRS here, since it's basically a pseudoscience claim with no actual scientific backing. Silver  seren C 10:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

What the websites were that she surveyed
I have added a discussion of what three websites were surveyed, because it's clearly relevant to the study's alleged findings to clearly and unambiguously disclose what the websites were - three nonprofessional sites which, according to other sources, were primarily populated by people hostile toward transgender rights, who actively rejected their child's trans identity, and who actively believed ROGD was a thing. This strikes to the heart of the study's credibility, because it then amounts to asking a bunch of people who have already made up their mind about something, what they've made up their mind about. As a social scientist, I'm appalled that any researcher would purport that such a methodology would produce anything remotely resembling valid results which can be extrapolated across broader populations. This is stuff you learn in basic grad-level research methods courses. The study has a purposive sample, which can only tell you about the experiences and beliefs found among that specific subpopulation of parents who chose to participate in trans-hostile websites - it's completely useless to tell us how the children themselves felt or what they experienced. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:47, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I hear you, but I'll just note for the record and for what it's worth that her response to this point is to say that her methods were consistent with those used without controversy in other studies. Not saying that justifies the method or is necessarily an apt comparison, but it is what it is. Crossroads -talk- 08:58, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've read it, and it's bullshit - the "comparable" studies she cited generally included sampling from at least one large, generalized platform such as Reddit, Yahoo, Twitter, and Facebook, which are apt to have much more diverse user bases than three VERY obscure ideologically-targeted "gender-critical" blogs. That she chose only those three blogs and nowhere else is... revealing. The fact that 88% of her respondents were women and two-thirds were in a single 15-year age range - 46-60 - is similarly suggestive of a bizarrely-flawed (to put it charitably) sample. If that had been my sample for my master's thesis, I'm fairly certain my adviser would have told me to redesign my entire study. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:29, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

"Parents' accounts of what they perceived as their teenage children"


Wait, these may not have been their children!?

But seriously, it does read oddly, and "parents' accounts of" already attributes the narrative to the parents. It's already saying it's an account. Why not add a "seemingly" in there too for good measure? That would be excessive, of course. So is this. Crossroads -talk- 09:08, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It is not great writing, but it seems obvious to me that the intended meaning is that "perceived as" refers to "suddenly manifesting", which is a perfectly accurate and relevant point to emphasize the parents' subjectivity about. Does anyone have a better way to say this? Newimpartial (talk) 09:47, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it is awkward, but what Newimpartial said - we need to make clear that what she was measuring in the survey is the parents' subjective perception of their child's gender identity "suddenly manifesting"; because she did not talk to any actual children going through this purported "ROGD," the study has no way of determining whether this parental perception was accurate, or whether the child had actually been exploring their gender identity for a period of time without their parents noticing, and thus the only thing "sudden" about it is how the parents experienced that revelation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:07, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * How about "what they perceived as a sudden manifestation in their teenage children of symptoms of gender dysphoria and self-identification as transgender simultaneously with other children in their peer group." Firefangledfeathers 19:24, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That's better. :) Newimpartial (talk) 19:25, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Perfect! NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:37, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's much better. The fact that the "sudden manifestation" is an opinion of the parents and not some fact of reality is a primary point of the ROGD study in question and academic criticism of it. Silver  seren C 05:58, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , the change was already discussed and approved of here. Your alteration is not equivalent. "A seemingly sudden manifestation" still implies that this happened in reality, rather than being entirely within the heads of the parents in question. Silver  seren C 06:28, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * A decision here doesn't mean it can't be further improved. Nobody doubts that these youths manifested symptoms of gender dysphoria and identified as transgender. So it isn't "entirely" within the heads of the parents. The doubt has to do with the timing, the "suddenness" of this, with critics saying they may have had these symptoms and/or identity well before revealing them. Crossroads -talk- 06:38, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It's still not quite there yet. The problem currently (as of 06:24, 18 Dec) is that Littman's term doesn't describe the parents' accounts (the accounts might be described as shocked, or bathetic, or resigned, or angry, but not as ROGD); rather, the term describes the purported syndrome described by the parents' accounts. I understand what the 3rd sentence of the LEAD is going for, and so does everybody here, and I'm not minimizing the effort it took to get this far. But, if you consider someone reading this who never heard of ROGD, maybe never heard of dysphoria, possibly with only vague notions of trans-anything, this sentence is not clear enough. It's possible the third sentence is trying to do too much work, and maybe it needs to be broken up into two or three; perhaps 3a): "Littman surveyed parents hanging out at some forums about transkids issues, and collected reports from the parents about their children reporting/coming out/stating/manifesting their transness/dysphoria;" and 3b): "The parents reported that these changes in their children occurred suddenly, and Littman named this apparent sudden change in their children as observed and reported by the parents as ROGD." Purposely left unrefined, just to get the main idea out there. Mathglot (talk) 09:16, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The key word, though, is sudden. As long as that word is used, we have to attribute the apparent change to the parent's perceptions and opinions, since Littman and all reputable sources afterwards do so. Implying that there is any evidence beyond that that the changes were sudden is a misuse of the sources. Either way I think the reworded version captures it better. --Aquillion (talk) 19:42, 19 December 2021 (UTC)


 * There appears to be at least a rough 5-1 consensus here for the new wording, or 5-2 if we count tweaks to it as objections? There is always room to workshop or refine it but unless I'm missing something I'm not seeing the lack of consensus described in this edit. Obviously quick nose-counts are fallible and not the be-all-and-end-all, but I found that edit summary a bit baffling. --Aquillion (talk) 23:51, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * In that edit I was reverting wording that was not discussed here at all. My "status quo" described includes the "what they perceived as" that people wanted above. I don't know what else you're counting in that "5", but if counts anything besides the "what they perceived as", it must mash together many different things. Crossroads -talk- 23:57, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Aquillion regards consensus and prefer SreySros improved wording over my attempt. Reading this thread the seemed a preference to break up the passage and regards the wording it is based on wording in the body .... "dedicated to opposing gender-affirmative care for trans youth", and "dedicated to opposing what they call "trans ideology" and known online venues for parents who reject their children's transgender identities and for specifically voicing out and promoting the concept of ROGD .... i dont think it can be described as WP:OR. ~ BOD ~ TALK 00:17, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know what anyone is counting as anything (though I am aware from experience that one editor plus Crossroads = consensus, at least according to that editor's rule of thumb). But I support adding a characterization of the websites from recruitment took place in the lede, as I regard the recruitment bias as in some ways a more fundamental issue with the Littman paper than the reliance on parents' self report (and many people more qualified than I have made this point in RS). Newimpartial (talk) 00:18, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * So, your argument is explicitly to include this because it helps disprove the paper. Doesn't sound very NPOV.
 * As for "dedicated to opposing gender-affirmative care for trans youth", sources as a whole don't support this. We can't cherrypick the WP:BIASEDSOURCE Florence Ashley when Science described them as "gathering places for parents concerned by their children's exploration of a transgender identity". Also, "trans youth" presupposes that all the kids in question are in fact trans rather than some exploring it but not actually being trans. Crossroads -talk- 00:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how experienced you are with NPOV, but the point of that concept is to describe things according to the BALANCE of the sourced descriptions and without taking sides. The fact, reported in multiple sources, that Littman recruited her participants from sites that actively encouraged skepticism towards their children's gender identity declarations is an important fact to know about her work even before discussing the criticism of her work by others. This isn't a matter of it helps disprove the paper, it is just a salient, sourced, fact about its origins. Newimpartial (talk) 12:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Here is another source that may be relevant, which notes that The sites where Littman advertised the study are critical of gender affirmative care for trans youth and promote skepticism regarding young people’s trans identities. We are already citing it once in the article, but only briefly and lumped in with other sources; it's also a decent source on the sites Littman used, since as far as I can tell it's (at a glance) one of the higher-quality ones discussing it. At the very least I don't think it would make sense to omit this omission in the original paper, since the issues that have been raised with the sites selected and the risk that it could invalidate the paper's results were specifically acknowledged in the correction, ie. it is a central part of the dispute even in Littman's account. Obviously she argues that it does not invalidate her results, but the fact that she acknowledged that it was a potential issue, and that her failure to name the sites in the original paper and to discuss this potential issue was an error requiring a correction, indicates that it is a central part of the dispute even before we look at secondary coverage. --Aquillion (talk) 20:28, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh nice, that's a useful source. I think we should cite that, along with the Wadman and Ashley sources to have a unified description of the sites both in the lead section and in the body (not necessarily the exact same description, we should probably go into more detail in the body) – something a bit cleaner than the clumsy A described the first two as "X", and the third as "Y". B described the first as "Z", and the latter two as "W" construction that we have now.
 * I don't know why anyone would read the quotes we have describing Littman's websites as contradicting each other. As far as I can tell, all the RSs we have (let me know if I've missed any) say that the websites are:
 * Populated by parents who already believed in ROGD as an explanation for their trans children's identities (Restar)
 * Gathering places for parents concerned by their children's trans identity (Wadman)
 * Dedicated to opposing gender-affirmative care for trans youth and "trans ideology" (Ashley)
 * Well-known for telling parents not to believe their child is transgender (Restar) and to be skeptical of their trans children's identities (Pitts-Taylor)
 * None of these sources contradict each other. Restar and Pitts-Taylor agree with each other almost exactly. Ashley remarks on the broad purpose of the sites rather than their specific behavior or populations, and her description is consistent with the others. Wadman is less specific than her counterparts, but that's to be expected given that it's a news article, not a peer-reviewed scientific paper like the others are. Further, her description is entirely consistent with the other sources. Even if we were to read her quote as these sites are gathering places for parents concerned by their children's trans identity [and are in other aspects completely unremarkable] (which, by the way, we absolutely shouldn't), this would be a minority viewpoint among the sourcing we have. Sr ey Sr os talk 06:22, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The study itself states that Website moderators and potential participants were encouraged to share the recruitment information and link to the survey with any individuals or communities that they thought might include eligible participants to expand the reach of the project through snowball sampling techniques. "Eligible participants" being defined earlier as someone with a parental response that their child had a sudden or rapid onset of gender dysphoria. This means that the study explicitly targeted people who a priori believed ROGD is a real thing, and that even if it was linked somewhere other than the three listed sites, there wouldn't be a meaningful difference in the sample because the author only wanted responses from people who think their child is experiencing ROGD. Any first-year social sciences grad student can recognize where this is going: this is a purposive sample, and the data you're going to get from a purposive sample is only valid to understand the population you sampled. So what we have is a study of what parents who believe in ROGD think about ROGD. Utterly and completely invalid for any other purpose, including to claim that ROGD even exists. And that's why all the major mental health and sexuality organizations rejected it offhand.
 * Think about it this way: if you go exclusively to three websites: dailyKos, Democratic Underground, and Talking Points Memo to get your convenience sample and then ask people on those sites to "share the recruitment information" for your study, do you think you will get very many, if any, responses from Donald Trump supporters? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:09, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy
There is currently a discussion at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding this article and talk page. The thread is Rapid-onset_gender_dysphoria_controversy. Thank you.

Sticking a notification here as multiple editors may wish to contribute there. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:08, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Removed section - my objection to it
I removed a quote from the Science article, because knowing what we now know about the study, I believe it is misleading and lacking in context. The quote makes a statement about the study's findings about the peer groups of trans children being "explosive," without explaining that the finding is based solely on parental reports from parents who believe their child is experiencing ROGD - the vast majority of whom openly reject their child's gender identity - not from the children themselves.

Relying on parents who a priori reject their child's gender identity to tell us anything meaningful or substantially true about their child's peer group of friends strikes me, as a trained qualitative social scientist, as extraordinarily dubious. The study subjects openly and explicitly deny their child's identity - why are we supposing that they have any significant knowledge of what their child's peer group actually is? Would a young adult who knows their parents reject their identity be likely to openly and truthfully share with their parents about their peers? Why is a purported study of young adult behavior attempting to divine all of its data from a small, targeted group of parents who openly and explicitly deny their child's feelings? Why was there no attempt to gather data from the young people themselves? This is extraordinarily dubious social science, and it's not surprising that other studies have failed to find any support for its existence.

Thus, I don't think that quote belongs, not at least without the context of what the study was actually measuring. The study reports what a purposive sample of anti-trans parents believe about their trans child's peer group - which may or may not have any resemblance whatsoever to what the peer group actually is. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * My objection to the paragraph, which I also removed, applies in addition to the version of the previous paragraph that Pengortm reinstated. In both paragraphs, the article text had followed journalistic sources and left the impression that Littman engaged in some form of triangulation in identifying characteristics of the children and their peer groups. As the reliable, secondary sources have emphasized Littman's reliance on parental-report measures, there is no justification for borrowing less accurate language from the journalists - just because Science published misleading language does not oblige us to repeat it here. Newimpartial (talk) 16:57, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Noting here that both Mathglot and Pengortm had restored it, but despite it being 2 on each side, it was reverted out again anyway. Crossroads -talk- 01:28, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Jeff Flier Commentary
What's wrong with the summary of his comments? The prior quote was 3 extended sentences long, which is a pretty large quote to include. Silver seren C 04:12, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Even the rewritten version seems WP:UNDUE; Quillette is a low-quality source which publishes opinions fairly indiscriminately as long as they agree with their perspective, so publication there doesn't carry much weight. It doesn't make sense to devote an entire paragraph to Flier's opinion in a low-quality source like that (especially given that Flier's expertise is unrelated to gender or sexuality) when we're devoting much less space to peer-reviewed studies. I think it's fair to say that   should each individually be given more text than we devote to Flier, or at least clearly not less - currently we lump them all together into a single sentence shorter than any of the multiple sentences given to Flier individually!  Either they need to be expanded, or Flier should be lumped into the second sentence that presents the other view and not given individual focus; the same applies to Lee Jussim, who also has no expertise relevant to sexuality and yet also inexplicably gets a paragraph to himself. Personally I prefer the latter - lumping together multiple similar opinions into a broad summary that covers all of them avoids the risk of "zinger" quotes getting dropped into the article in a way that makes it NPOV.  But it is especially a POV issue to have multiple such zingers from one side and the opposing side of a controversy condensed into a brief "some people disagree", so we either need to expand those three until they each individually get at least as much text as Flier and Jussim, or we need to condense Flier and Jussim together into the existing single sentence with others who hold views similar to them in the same way.  Look at the current structure of the section - the middle paragraph carefully balances viewpoints and condenses multiple views from experts in high-quality relevant journals into a few sentences to do so; then the entire first paragraph and third paragraphs are devoted to individual views from people with weaker expertise publishing in less-relevant sources (with most of the first paragraph being cited to an unreliable axe-grindy culture-war source!)  --Aquillion (talk) 09:42, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * What says here sounds reasonable to me. I'm not a big fan of "zinger" quotes. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:36, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that condensing to preserve a neutral POV is encyclopedically preferable to expansion. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 19:17, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I also agree with it is definitely wrong, WP:UNDUE and against WP:NPOV to give comparatively more space to commentators who have very little or no expertise in the subject (and who are writing in lower quality sources) than to  peer-reviewed studies by qualified specialists whose work is published in sources that relate to the subject. To even give them equal space & weight would be a false balance.  ~ BOD ~ TALK 20:31, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're absolutely right. Upon reflection, even the I wrote gives far too much weight to Flier and Jussim relative to the higher-quality sources we have. I agree that condensing the first and third paragraph into a sentence or two would even out the  issues with the current, although the section as a whole isn't that long as-is so we could expand our coverage of the Ashley, Kennedy, and Pitts-Taylor sources and flesh out the section a bit (and perhaps condense Flier/Jussim a bit less in that case). If nobody else does I'll likely have time to take a crack at rebalancing the section this evening.  Sr ey Sr os talk 21:55, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I prefer less (or no) cutting of the Flier and Jussim articles and expansion of the other three. Better to be comprehensive. Crossroads -talk- 04:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I made an editundefined attempting to implement the consensus here and reduce the weight placed on Flier and Jussim, but my edits were revertedundefined by . Is my understanding of the consensus here incorrect? It seems we have six editors here on Talk in support of reduced weight on these sources, and the current state of the article does not seem to reflect that. Sr ey Sr os talk 00:08, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The degree of reduction was not specified, and ideally there should be compromise with the editors who thought that reduction was excessive. It is fine to reduce it, but not at the expense of removing major points. Expand the text sourced to other articles with opposing POVs by a similar amount instead if you wish. Crossroads -talk- 20:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You are once again edit-warring against the consensus of multiple other editors. No one stated that the text should be expanded. Silver  seren C 20:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Retract your false accusation. All those editors were commenting on the much longer version as seen here. I did not "expand" the text from that. SreySros' harsh reduction isn't privileged just by being the first attempt. Rather, compromise is expected when reaching WP:Consensus. It seems Pengortm agrees with me that version was too short. Removing major points is POV. My version was a reduction from what all those people were commenting on as it existed at the time. Crossroads -talk- 20:49, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You literally just above in your comment argued for expanding the other text after you reverted reduction of the quote as is the consensus in this discussion. Summarizing over-long quotes is not POV. Silver  seren C 21:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * it didn’t look like edit warring to me.CycoMa1 (talk) 20:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Making the same reversion after Pengortm reverted and was changed again with a edit summary noting the consensus on the talk page. That is tag-team edit warring yes. Especially when one party isn't engaging on the talk page, but just keep coming in to revert any time a consensus change is enacted. Silver  seren C 21:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If anyone is tag team edit warring it is you, reverting any version other than the most reduced version. I did not revert the reduction as a whole as you imply. Again, SreySros' initial harsh reduction is not the only way of reducing it, and making an edit to try to compromise is fine. And my version differed from Pengortm's as it was shorter. Crossroads -talk- 21:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

"Anti-trans" discussion
Note that community input is currently being sought on the term "anti-trans" in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Is_%22anti-trans%22_equivalent_to_%22transphobic%22? this discussion] at the Words to Watch/MOS:LABEL Talk page. Newimpartial (talk) 16:31, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I’m not sure about further research section
I have a slight issue with the source in the Further research section.

Although the source is indeed reliable the source is actually a classified as a case reports on pubmed. Making it fall into that category of primary source. And primary sources aren’t really ideal for Wikipedia especially regarding topics like this.

So I think we should keep the study in the further research section but remove its mention from the lead.CycoMa1 (talk) 20:41, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This isn't a scientific topic in the first place, but one that falls under WP:FRINGE. If it was a science article, literally the article subject study would fail MEDRS. And the case report is the only actual academic material published on this subject. It is the only actual science to report on, hence why it should be and is in the lede. Silver  seren C 21:07, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * All Wikipedia articles are to be based on the highest-quality sources available, per policy, and that includes determining what is due for the lead section as well as the body. Since the study in question is one of the highest-quality sources available, it is DUE for mention in both body and lead. Newimpartial (talk) 23:08, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I wanna respond to this statement And the case report is the only actual academic material published on this subject. that’s kinda the problem, having it in the lead makes it seem like there is a consensus. The source doesn’t indicate there is a consensus on this.


 * not arguing against its quality of it and I agree the source is reliable. But as Silverseren stated that the report is the only actual academic material published on this subject.(I’ll example more in depth it’s just I don’t want this comment to be too long)CycoMa1 (talk) 03:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * So you think the only science actually investigating a fringe topic shouldn't be discussed in the lede? Based on how WP:FRINGE works, we should honestly be giving the actual science even more prominence than we are now and have wording even more clear in the article that ROGD is pseudoscience. Silver  seren C 03:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I never said that and to be honest with you I personally agree with you that ROGD is pseudoscience. But, I am aware my personal beliefs have no place on Wikipedia. I mean half of the stuff I write about on Wikipedia is stuff I personally don’t agree with.


 * We shouldn’t be acting consensus is there when a source never states it’s there. Isn’t Wikipedia about representing the majority view and give due weight to smaller views. Not what views we think are right or wrong?


 * I mean would you write on Wikipedia that there is a consensus that a certain pill cures cancer because of one study.CycoMa1 (talk) 03:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Except FRINGE is specifically about not prioritizing pseudoscience views just because those are the majority view in sources that cover such topics. You prioritize the actual science. In that regard, pseudoscience topics are indeed ones where Wikipedia takes a stance of giving actual weight to the scientific sources over the non-science ones. Silver  seren C 03:54, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Have we had a formal RFC to classify ROGD as WP:FRINGE? I feel like that might be useful to clearing up a lot of disputes here (in particular, glancing over the article, some of the sourcing - if it is fringe - reminds me of the similar problems we once had on articles about climate change, evolution, etc., where tiny groups of people with tangential academic expertise are given undue weight simply because their views are so controversial despite overwhelming academic rejection.)  There is an open RFC at Talk:Irreversible_Damage, but that is specific to that article and specifically about whether it should be described as fringe in the article voice - many of the commenters opposing that seemed to indicate that they agree that it is a fringe theory as we define the term, but that we shouldn't use that language in the article voice.  A broader RFC clearly establishing ROGD as fringe would probably resolve a lot of underlying disputes on this page and elsewhere, especially when it comes to WP:DUE / WP:GEVAL disagreements. --Aquillion (talk) 09:00, 9 January 2022 (UTC)


 * like I said earlier I do not disagree with the view that it’s fringe. Because I personally think it is.CycoMa1 (talk) 15:46, 9 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Like can you people please stop assuming me that I’m here to promote fringe. Seriously I have close friends who are LGBTQ+ in real life, so when you people call me a bigot or say I’m here to promote fringe I take that as a personal attack.CycoMa1 (talk) 15:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to accuse you of anything - the issue isn't editors, it's the sources. If there is a general agreement that this topic is fringe then that significantly changes how we treat sources that promote it per WP:GEVAL and WP:PARITY. I am particularly looking at the entire paragraph we are currently devoting to The Pediatric and Adolescent Gender Dysphoria (GD) Working Group - again, it seems eerily reminiscent of similar "professional groups" set up to promote fringe theories in other contexts, so I would want to avoid citing it directly and only cite it via secondary sources, if at all. Similar issues are raised for some sources elsewhere in the reactions section - again, when covering the promotion of a fringe theory, we have to cite it to the best available sources, and avoid eg. citing an opinion from Quillette purely to give equal validity. And this also affects the source you're mentioning in the other direction - per WP:PARITY we are allowed to cite weaker sources that debunk a fringe theory provided they are of at least equal weight and reliability to the sources we're citing that promote it. Since Littman's own paper is clearly likewise WP:PRIMARY, and is the main academic source we cite in favor of her theories, that means that we can cite other academic primary sources responding to or debunking it. If we removed it without replacing it we'd have to remove most of the direct cites to Littman as well, because we have an obligation to present equal or better sources responding to a fringe theory when we present sources that promote it. --Aquillion (talk) 19:22, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You make a very good point. I don't recall an RFC taking place on this issue, but it certainly seems that we have at least an informal consensus that it is WP:FRINGE (especially given the RFC at the book article). I agree that it would be very helpful to have a formal consensus on the record for this issue, and I support starting an RFC. While this isn't solely a matter of editorial consensus the way, say, a stylistic decision would be, RFCs determining whether a topic falls under WP:FRINGE are at the very least not unheard of. Sr ey Sr os talk 20:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not Wikipedia's place to develop a 'party line' (as it were) on the academic standing of particular ideas decontextualized from specific proposals about how to represent sources in article(s). Such a proposal then leads to classifying any sources that turn up in the future based on whether they agree with the preconceived 'official Wikipedia view' rather than according to RS/MEDRS. Classifying something as "WP:FRINGE" doesn't make sense anyway because (1) FRINGE applies to every article, and (2) FRINGE itself has several subcategories describing different levels of academic acceptance - so it's unclear which category would even be meant.
 * Nobody is trying to insert ROGD at articles outside of the topic itself - i.e., this one and Irreversible Damage, a book all about it. Even I would revert attempts to add it at, say, Gender dysphoria. It doesn't meet MEDRS standards for inclusion at articles about the development of gender dysphoria or transgender identity in general, simple as that.
 * Regarding CycoMa1's concern, while normally an article should not cite single studies - and such are reverted at gender dysphoria, etc. - this is an article specifically about a single study and the controversy it generated, so single studies rebutting it are WP:DUE. I imagine he asked since I'm pretty sure he's seen reversions of such studies at those articles, so it is understandable he might wonder why it is different here. Crossroads -talk- 07:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Coming up to speed here, not seeing why ROGD is being considered WP:FRINGE. There is the original paper, which was peer reviewed twice, and accepted twice.  The second time, "Other than the addition of a few missing values in Table 13, the Results section is unchanged in the updated version of the article. "
 * There are other peer reviewed articles referencing the ROGD hypotheses (Dr. Littman does not call it a diagnosis), for instance:
 * and, the latter is a pubmed review, a secondary source.
 * There is also the Littman recent detransitioner study, where more support is found, from first person accounts, of support for "the rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD) hypotheses which, briefly stated, are that psychosocial factors (such as trauma, mental health conditions, maladaptive coping mechanisms, internalized homophobia, and social influence) can cause or contribute to the development of gender dysphoria in some individuals ".  This article and its results relevant to ROGD don't seem to be on the ROGD page yet.
 * And yes, has measured something which it says shows that ROGD does not occur, so there is a controversy, but that does not seem to be sufficient to establish that this topic is fringe. In fact, Dr. Erica Anderson, a transgender expert from UCSF (so expert opinion, the lowest form of medical evidence) also just wrote an op-ed about concerns of peer influence, the URL has "social contagion" in it and Dr. Anderson states:"How is it possible that gender identity formation constitutes the only area of development in adolescence that is immune from peer influence? "  Apologies if this list of references is in the wrong discussion, the topic seems to be coming up in a few places. Thanks. Jdbrook talk 18:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh hey, you're back. You've been gone for a couple months. I see you've now branched out to a fourth article for your entire wiki-history, other than Puberty blocker, Gender dysphoria, and Detransition. Welcome. I think you'll find that the issues with the ROGD study that has been heavily criticized by the scientific community for purposefully using not only anti-trans websites for data collection, but also parents and not actual trans kids, runs into the same issue with the detransitioner study you linked. Not only is it incredibly vague on its criteria, such as just having been on puberty blockers at all and then stopping counts as "detransitioning", but also "other surgery" separate from breast and genital surgery that isn't defined, but it also says the survey was first distributed to "a private online detransition forum, in a closed detransition Facebook group, and on Tumblr, Twitter, and Reddit.", without further elaboration. Which sounds like it falls into the same issue as the original study in regards to purposeful bias of selection on where the data is coming from.


 * What was this Facebook group? Was the distribution on social media just using her own account, which is itself followed by a massive amount of anti-trans people who would then only distribute it among themselves? What Reddit forums was it posted in? Was it the detransition ones that are well-known on the Reddit LGBT community to have been taken over by anti-trans users years ago? Ect ect on why her original ROGD study was fringe and her detransition study likely falls under the same issues. None of them are proper science. Silver  seren C 19:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The bizarre part is that, almost as an afterthought, the study after that says "Recruitment information was also shared on the professional listservs for the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, the American Psychological Association Section 44, and the SEXNET listserv (which is a listserv of sex researchers and clinicians)". Why was this listed after the social media stuff above? Why wasn't this the only thing shared to, which would fix all of the bias in selection issues I noted? If the study only shared to the scientific listservs, that would fix everything. But that's not what was done, it seems. Silver  seren C 19:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Finding that a phenomenon exists does not require a representative study, as finding instances of something is sufficient to show that it occurs. And it is sufficient to start doing a hypothesis generating study, such as was done by Dr. Littman.  To say it is a generally representative study is a much bigger step, and I do not see that Dr. Littman makes that claim. She also compares her methodologies to those of several other papers in the field in Littman 2020.  Again, she is describing a phenomenon, and she says where it was found, in which groups. I do not see her claiming it applies to every person with gender dysphoria.  Her detransitioner study similarly does not claim to represent every detransitioner.  Thanks. Jdbrook talk 04:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Defining a phenomenon that exists depends rather heavily on the interpretation of the evidence used, so multiple studies are generally required. Do detransitioners exist? Sure. Does ROGD exist? Not so much - at least, no MEDRS have been presented on this page that agree with Littman that it does. Newimpartial (talk) 12:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC)