This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Hello FlyerReborn22,
First, thanks for your earlier welcome and pointing to resources.
Why are all of my changes being reverted? There is no clear challenge and many of the studies meet the medical standard. Some that are being used to replace them are old and single study, so confused. Would you please clarify? It would help to have a clear view of what is being disputed. I apologise for any ignorance; I am not a regular editor and have much to learn (but do wish to).
Thanks,
Cedarparrot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cedarparrot ( talk • contribs)
It stands out to me that sections titled things like "opposing", "other", and "alternative" contain "The consensus of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health". If the views described therein are now mainstream, sections should be retitled at least. We might also want to consider switching from away from a historical ordering in the Management section, to give more focus to current practices rather than history. CyreJ ( talk) 10:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
I reiterate my request to change the sentence "Gender identity disorder in children is more heavily linked with adult homosexuality than adult transsexualism" to "Gender identity in children is strongly linked with both adult homosexuality and adult transsexualism" in the second paragraph of this article.
Interested Wikipedians may catch up on this issue, which was previously discussed in 2015, at Talk:Gender dysphoria in children/Archive 1#Improper Synthesis in Lead. I am initiating the dispute resolution process by requesting a third opinion. -- April Arcus ( talk) 23:04, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request: |
I have taken a third opinion request for this page and am currently reviewing the issues. Jack Frost ( talk) 13:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC) |
Sorry to butt in, I responded to the WP:3O request by reviewing the page and the various discussions. As a result I have removed the sentence under discussion, as being ill-expressed and, in view of the next sentence, redundant. I feel that the article is better without it. I hope this helps. I'll butt out now. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 16:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
In case anyone does turn up, the (or a) current issue is whether to include the comment "Gender dysphoria in children is more heavily linked with adult homosexuality than an adult transgender identity." This sentence could mean a variety of things. It actually means that most children with gender dysphoria become homosexual as adults, but most of them do not experience a transgender identity as adults; the next sentence says it clearly. "Heavily linked" could refer to something about the underlying psychological mechanisms, something about media comment, something about upbringing in families with a gay parent, even something about genetics - but it doesn't. It is a poor piece of writing, unsuitable for an encyclopedia and especially unsuitable for the lede, and the article is much better without it. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 08:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
The lead… gives the basics in a nutshell and cultivates interest in reading on... It should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view.The sentence is interesting, adds context for the reader, and is covered further in the article; hence I think that its’ inclusion in the lead is not unreasonable. In terms of phrasing; the current wording is quite acceptable. Although I do empathise with Richard Keatinge's view that “…heavily linked…” seems a little vague, although this certainly should not preclude inclusion in its' current form (and I am stuffed if I can think of how to improve it right at the moment). In summary; (1) keep the sentence, (2) keep it in the lead, (3) consider a rephrase (although I do not believe by any stretch that this is a must). I hope that this is helpful. -- Jack Frost ( talk) 11:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Source is straight up a dead link. Can someone provide a link to a way back machine for that source or remove the source entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CycoMa ( talk • contribs) 04:30, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
@ Flyer22 Frozen: How is my content about the persistence of gender dysphoria from childhood into adolescence not related to gender dysphoria in children, but somehow the entire rest of the "Prospective outcomes" section is? Understanding how often and why gender dysphoria persists from childhood through puberty (or doesn't persist) is a very important piece of information for parents trying to understand the condition, as it affects the decision whether or not to put children on puberty-blockers. The content I added is even sourced from a review article titled "Gender dysphoria in childhood" for Pete sake. I don't understand how you can argue it isn't relevant for the article. It follows quite logically from the preceding sentences, which are also about the persistence of childhood gender dysphoria (as that's the topic of the entire section). Kaldari ( talk) 04:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 September 2020 and 23 November 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Joshtillmord. Peer reviewers: Emv1997, SuzySchaffer.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 10:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 16 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Chele1169.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 10:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Tagging user:Crossroads
Since you requested evidence of this being professional consensus, here is such evidence, grouped by topic. I'll state in advance that because WPATH is in the process of rewriting their guidelines on trans health, with a planned release of this summer, I have excluded them for the time being. Let us begin:
Suicidality
American Medical Association:
"Studies also demonstrate dramatic reductions in suicide attempts, as well as decreased rates of depression and anxiety.3 Other studies show that a majority of patients report improved mental health and function after receipt of gender-affirming care." https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press-releases/ama-states-stop-interfering-health-care-transgender-children
American Association of Pediatrics:
"For young people who identify as transgender, studies show that gender-affirming care can reduce emotional distress, improve their sense of well-being and reduce the risk of suicide."
American Psychiatric Association:
"Trans-affirming treatment, such as the use of puberty suppression, is associated with the relief of emotional distress, and notable gains in psychosocial and emotional development, in trans and gender diverse youth."
Stability of Childhood Gender Identity
American Association of Pediatrics:
"Accordingly, research substantiates that children who are prepubertal and assert an identity of TGD know their gender as clearly and as consistently as their developmentally equivalent peers who identify as cisgender and benefit from the same level of social acceptance"
"By age four: Most children have a stable sense of their gender identity."
American Psychological Association:
"WHEREAS many children and adolescents are aware of their diverse attractions and sexual behaviors, or of their identities by childhood and early adolescence"
"WHEREAS a person's gender identity develops in early childhood and some children and adolescents may not identify with their assigned sex at birth"
https://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/policy/gender-diverse-children
Medically Recommended Methods of Resolving Dysphoria
World Medical Association:
"Evidence suggests that treatment with sex hormones or surgical interventions can be beneficial to people with pronounced and long-lasting gender dysphoria who seek gender transition."
https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-statement-on-transgender-people/
Endocrine Society:
"Gender-dysphoric/gender-incongruent persons should receive a safe and effective hormone regimen that will suppress the body’s sex hormone secretion, determined at birth and manifested at puberty, and maintain levels of sex steroids within the normal range for the person’s affirmed gender."
"We suggest that adolescents who meet diagnostic criteria for GD/gender incongruence, fulfill criteria for treatment, and are requesting treatment should initially undergo treatment to suppress pubertal development."
https://www.endocrine.org/clinical-practice-guidelines/gender-dysphoria-gender-incongruence#2
Pediatric Endocrine Society:
"Transitioning has been associated with positive health outcomes by reducing gender dysphoria."
https://pedsendo.org/patient-resource/transgender-care/
Need I go on? Because I have reams more of this stuff.
Snokalok ( talk) 18:58, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
It's not really Wikipedia's job to decide whether peer-reviewed review articles have pulled their data from discredited work. Also, MEDRS explicitly calls out Wikipedia editors' own "objections to the inclusion criteria" as something that we should not be relying on. If the research literature is wrong, then our goal is to be just as wrong as the research literature.Crossroads -talk- 04:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Even that view should not be interpreted as supporting text that is more wrong than the research literature, which has been true of the section in question since it was added in mid-2020 (until this week). Newimpartial ( talk)
Hi there,
The leading trans youth researcher at Princeton, Kristina Olson, follows a prospective cohort of 300 self-identifying trans youth. She just published her most recent findings in the peer-reviewed journal Pediatrics here. Her main finding is that 94% of her cohort still identified as trans 5 years later.
This directly contradicts the title sentence in this topic.
Beyond that, the citations coming in support of that assertion in this page (2,3,4) are not citations of original research. The links lead to text books, which point to further papers that are not available in the links. Shouldn't such a strong assertion be supported by equally strong references?
Thoughts?
PS: I am new to Wikipedia editing, apologies if I'm missing a few etiquette points :-/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbfrombkln ( talk • contribs)
If conclusions are worth mentioning (such as large randomized clinical trials with surprising results), they should be described appropriately as from a single study:- and then gives an example of how to attribute such findings. It seems to me that the much lower desistence rates being found in the high-quality studies currently ongoing in the US, Canada and elsewhere are very much analogous to
large randomized clinical trials with surprising resultsand are therefore potentially DUE for attributed inclusion as MEDPRI allows. Newimpartial ( talk) 10:59, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
I think it is safe to assume that the high desistance rates from the earlier studies are not going to be replicated in the future- no, assumptions either way are not safe. We want to wait for new WP:MEDRS secondary sources first - we cite reviews, we don't write them. This isn't the same thing as a large RCT either. Crossroads -talk- 20:19, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
It appears Jdbrook added much of the content about this at the detransition page. The editor also added related content to additional articles. They seem to have a good understanding of the research, and could probably be helpful here. I agree with others to do what WP:MEDRS says and to rely on reviews rather than the primary research findings. Thinnyshivers ( talk) 19:39, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
to do what WP:MEDRS saysor
to rely on reviews rather than the primary research findings? MEDRS does not necessarily mandate us to ignore primary research findings. Newimpartial ( talk) 19:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Informed consent for social transition represents a gray area. Evidence suggests that social transition is associated with the persistence of gender dysphoria (Hembree et al., 2017; Steensma, McGuire, Kreukels, Beekman, & Cohen-Kettenis, 2013). This suggests that social gender transition is a form of a psychological intervention with potential lasting effects (Zucker, 2020). While the causality has not been proven, the possibility of iatrogenesis and the resulting exposure to the risks of future medical and surgical gender dysphoria treatments, qualifies social gender transition for explicit, rather than implied, consent.
guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies, which are fairly unequivocal in the low WEIGHT they place on the 20th century studies and review aricles based on them.
prescient- this is Stephen Levine who chaired the 1998 WPATH committee, producing the last version that endorsed the concept of "autogynephilia".
I reverted Newimpartial's reinsertion of Snokalok's edit, per the discussion above. There isn't anything at WP:MEDRS that says to prefer primary sources over secondary sources in this way, especially when those same secondary sources are used to support things Snokalok agrees with while they excise them for things they disagree with. Additionally, the WP:MED discussion makes a point of saying that if information and criticism about these studies is to be covered anywhere, then it's this article. There's coverage on them at the detransition article, and they belong here more than they belong there. Complete failure to even mention this information in this article is not in accordance with WP:DUE. Stathin ( talk) 22:53, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Gender dysphoria in prepubertal children is more heavily linked to adult homosexuality than to an adult transgender identity, especially with regard to boys.That isn't just unDUE; it isn't supported in the body at all. Newimpartial ( talk) 20:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
If you think it is not WP:UNDUE
to isolate a finding that is included in the Article body only with attribution, and which is followed by a long paragraph of RS criticism of the relevant studies, and make the contested claim in the lead section in Wikivoice, then I don't think other editors should take your interpretation of
WP:DUE very seriously.
Newimpartial (
talk)
20:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
And your interpretation of WP:DUE has been discredited multiple times at WP:MED- where do you believe that this happened? I don't know whether you're aware of this, but on Wikipedia Talk pages, we aren't supposed to make WP:ASPERSIONS. Allegations are supposed to be based on evidence in the form of diffs.
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Hello FlyerReborn22,
First, thanks for your earlier welcome and pointing to resources.
Why are all of my changes being reverted? There is no clear challenge and many of the studies meet the medical standard. Some that are being used to replace them are old and single study, so confused. Would you please clarify? It would help to have a clear view of what is being disputed. I apologise for any ignorance; I am not a regular editor and have much to learn (but do wish to).
Thanks,
Cedarparrot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cedarparrot ( talk • contribs)
It stands out to me that sections titled things like "opposing", "other", and "alternative" contain "The consensus of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health". If the views described therein are now mainstream, sections should be retitled at least. We might also want to consider switching from away from a historical ordering in the Management section, to give more focus to current practices rather than history. CyreJ ( talk) 10:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
I reiterate my request to change the sentence "Gender identity disorder in children is more heavily linked with adult homosexuality than adult transsexualism" to "Gender identity in children is strongly linked with both adult homosexuality and adult transsexualism" in the second paragraph of this article.
Interested Wikipedians may catch up on this issue, which was previously discussed in 2015, at Talk:Gender dysphoria in children/Archive 1#Improper Synthesis in Lead. I am initiating the dispute resolution process by requesting a third opinion. -- April Arcus ( talk) 23:04, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request: |
I have taken a third opinion request for this page and am currently reviewing the issues. Jack Frost ( talk) 13:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC) |
Sorry to butt in, I responded to the WP:3O request by reviewing the page and the various discussions. As a result I have removed the sentence under discussion, as being ill-expressed and, in view of the next sentence, redundant. I feel that the article is better without it. I hope this helps. I'll butt out now. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 16:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
In case anyone does turn up, the (or a) current issue is whether to include the comment "Gender dysphoria in children is more heavily linked with adult homosexuality than an adult transgender identity." This sentence could mean a variety of things. It actually means that most children with gender dysphoria become homosexual as adults, but most of them do not experience a transgender identity as adults; the next sentence says it clearly. "Heavily linked" could refer to something about the underlying psychological mechanisms, something about media comment, something about upbringing in families with a gay parent, even something about genetics - but it doesn't. It is a poor piece of writing, unsuitable for an encyclopedia and especially unsuitable for the lede, and the article is much better without it. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 08:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
The lead… gives the basics in a nutshell and cultivates interest in reading on... It should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view.The sentence is interesting, adds context for the reader, and is covered further in the article; hence I think that its’ inclusion in the lead is not unreasonable. In terms of phrasing; the current wording is quite acceptable. Although I do empathise with Richard Keatinge's view that “…heavily linked…” seems a little vague, although this certainly should not preclude inclusion in its' current form (and I am stuffed if I can think of how to improve it right at the moment). In summary; (1) keep the sentence, (2) keep it in the lead, (3) consider a rephrase (although I do not believe by any stretch that this is a must). I hope that this is helpful. -- Jack Frost ( talk) 11:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Source is straight up a dead link. Can someone provide a link to a way back machine for that source or remove the source entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CycoMa ( talk • contribs) 04:30, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
@ Flyer22 Frozen: How is my content about the persistence of gender dysphoria from childhood into adolescence not related to gender dysphoria in children, but somehow the entire rest of the "Prospective outcomes" section is? Understanding how often and why gender dysphoria persists from childhood through puberty (or doesn't persist) is a very important piece of information for parents trying to understand the condition, as it affects the decision whether or not to put children on puberty-blockers. The content I added is even sourced from a review article titled "Gender dysphoria in childhood" for Pete sake. I don't understand how you can argue it isn't relevant for the article. It follows quite logically from the preceding sentences, which are also about the persistence of childhood gender dysphoria (as that's the topic of the entire section). Kaldari ( talk) 04:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 September 2020 and 23 November 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Joshtillmord. Peer reviewers: Emv1997, SuzySchaffer.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 10:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 16 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Chele1169.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 10:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Tagging user:Crossroads
Since you requested evidence of this being professional consensus, here is such evidence, grouped by topic. I'll state in advance that because WPATH is in the process of rewriting their guidelines on trans health, with a planned release of this summer, I have excluded them for the time being. Let us begin:
Suicidality
American Medical Association:
"Studies also demonstrate dramatic reductions in suicide attempts, as well as decreased rates of depression and anxiety.3 Other studies show that a majority of patients report improved mental health and function after receipt of gender-affirming care." https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press-releases/ama-states-stop-interfering-health-care-transgender-children
American Association of Pediatrics:
"For young people who identify as transgender, studies show that gender-affirming care can reduce emotional distress, improve their sense of well-being and reduce the risk of suicide."
American Psychiatric Association:
"Trans-affirming treatment, such as the use of puberty suppression, is associated with the relief of emotional distress, and notable gains in psychosocial and emotional development, in trans and gender diverse youth."
Stability of Childhood Gender Identity
American Association of Pediatrics:
"Accordingly, research substantiates that children who are prepubertal and assert an identity of TGD know their gender as clearly and as consistently as their developmentally equivalent peers who identify as cisgender and benefit from the same level of social acceptance"
"By age four: Most children have a stable sense of their gender identity."
American Psychological Association:
"WHEREAS many children and adolescents are aware of their diverse attractions and sexual behaviors, or of their identities by childhood and early adolescence"
"WHEREAS a person's gender identity develops in early childhood and some children and adolescents may not identify with their assigned sex at birth"
https://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/policy/gender-diverse-children
Medically Recommended Methods of Resolving Dysphoria
World Medical Association:
"Evidence suggests that treatment with sex hormones or surgical interventions can be beneficial to people with pronounced and long-lasting gender dysphoria who seek gender transition."
https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-statement-on-transgender-people/
Endocrine Society:
"Gender-dysphoric/gender-incongruent persons should receive a safe and effective hormone regimen that will suppress the body’s sex hormone secretion, determined at birth and manifested at puberty, and maintain levels of sex steroids within the normal range for the person’s affirmed gender."
"We suggest that adolescents who meet diagnostic criteria for GD/gender incongruence, fulfill criteria for treatment, and are requesting treatment should initially undergo treatment to suppress pubertal development."
https://www.endocrine.org/clinical-practice-guidelines/gender-dysphoria-gender-incongruence#2
Pediatric Endocrine Society:
"Transitioning has been associated with positive health outcomes by reducing gender dysphoria."
https://pedsendo.org/patient-resource/transgender-care/
Need I go on? Because I have reams more of this stuff.
Snokalok ( talk) 18:58, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
It's not really Wikipedia's job to decide whether peer-reviewed review articles have pulled their data from discredited work. Also, MEDRS explicitly calls out Wikipedia editors' own "objections to the inclusion criteria" as something that we should not be relying on. If the research literature is wrong, then our goal is to be just as wrong as the research literature.Crossroads -talk- 04:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Even that view should not be interpreted as supporting text that is more wrong than the research literature, which has been true of the section in question since it was added in mid-2020 (until this week). Newimpartial ( talk)
Hi there,
The leading trans youth researcher at Princeton, Kristina Olson, follows a prospective cohort of 300 self-identifying trans youth. She just published her most recent findings in the peer-reviewed journal Pediatrics here. Her main finding is that 94% of her cohort still identified as trans 5 years later.
This directly contradicts the title sentence in this topic.
Beyond that, the citations coming in support of that assertion in this page (2,3,4) are not citations of original research. The links lead to text books, which point to further papers that are not available in the links. Shouldn't such a strong assertion be supported by equally strong references?
Thoughts?
PS: I am new to Wikipedia editing, apologies if I'm missing a few etiquette points :-/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbfrombkln ( talk • contribs)
If conclusions are worth mentioning (such as large randomized clinical trials with surprising results), they should be described appropriately as from a single study:- and then gives an example of how to attribute such findings. It seems to me that the much lower desistence rates being found in the high-quality studies currently ongoing in the US, Canada and elsewhere are very much analogous to
large randomized clinical trials with surprising resultsand are therefore potentially DUE for attributed inclusion as MEDPRI allows. Newimpartial ( talk) 10:59, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
I think it is safe to assume that the high desistance rates from the earlier studies are not going to be replicated in the future- no, assumptions either way are not safe. We want to wait for new WP:MEDRS secondary sources first - we cite reviews, we don't write them. This isn't the same thing as a large RCT either. Crossroads -talk- 20:19, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
It appears Jdbrook added much of the content about this at the detransition page. The editor also added related content to additional articles. They seem to have a good understanding of the research, and could probably be helpful here. I agree with others to do what WP:MEDRS says and to rely on reviews rather than the primary research findings. Thinnyshivers ( talk) 19:39, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
to do what WP:MEDRS saysor
to rely on reviews rather than the primary research findings? MEDRS does not necessarily mandate us to ignore primary research findings. Newimpartial ( talk) 19:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Informed consent for social transition represents a gray area. Evidence suggests that social transition is associated with the persistence of gender dysphoria (Hembree et al., 2017; Steensma, McGuire, Kreukels, Beekman, & Cohen-Kettenis, 2013). This suggests that social gender transition is a form of a psychological intervention with potential lasting effects (Zucker, 2020). While the causality has not been proven, the possibility of iatrogenesis and the resulting exposure to the risks of future medical and surgical gender dysphoria treatments, qualifies social gender transition for explicit, rather than implied, consent.
guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies, which are fairly unequivocal in the low WEIGHT they place on the 20th century studies and review aricles based on them.
prescient- this is Stephen Levine who chaired the 1998 WPATH committee, producing the last version that endorsed the concept of "autogynephilia".
I reverted Newimpartial's reinsertion of Snokalok's edit, per the discussion above. There isn't anything at WP:MEDRS that says to prefer primary sources over secondary sources in this way, especially when those same secondary sources are used to support things Snokalok agrees with while they excise them for things they disagree with. Additionally, the WP:MED discussion makes a point of saying that if information and criticism about these studies is to be covered anywhere, then it's this article. There's coverage on them at the detransition article, and they belong here more than they belong there. Complete failure to even mention this information in this article is not in accordance with WP:DUE. Stathin ( talk) 22:53, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Gender dysphoria in prepubertal children is more heavily linked to adult homosexuality than to an adult transgender identity, especially with regard to boys.That isn't just unDUE; it isn't supported in the body at all. Newimpartial ( talk) 20:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
If you think it is not WP:UNDUE
to isolate a finding that is included in the Article body only with attribution, and which is followed by a long paragraph of RS criticism of the relevant studies, and make the contested claim in the lead section in Wikivoice, then I don't think other editors should take your interpretation of
WP:DUE very seriously.
Newimpartial (
talk)
20:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
And your interpretation of WP:DUE has been discredited multiple times at WP:MED- where do you believe that this happened? I don't know whether you're aware of this, but on Wikipedia Talk pages, we aren't supposed to make WP:ASPERSIONS. Allegations are supposed to be based on evidence in the form of diffs.