![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
I see an earlier discussion about this topic, but it was a few months ago, so I'll start a new one.
"discredited" is WP:CONTENTIOUS and not necessary when a far more factual alternative phrasing exists. There's an excellent, great quality source signed by multiple medical organisations that *very clearly* states in WP:MEDRS fashion why they oppose it - the lack of evidence. If we're making medical claims, let's use the language of the MEDRS. WP:WHITEWASHING was waved around in the edit reason but not only does that link to an irrelevant policy ( WP:NOTADVOCACY) but I also think it's pretty hasty not to address the WP:WIKIVOICE issue of using a different description than the MEDRS available on the subject.
BrigadierG ( talk) 14:48, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
used to justify limiting the rights of transgender adolescents? It is directly supported by a high-quality source. Newimpartial ( talk) 16:09, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
If a word can be replaced by one with less potential for misunderstanding, it should be.WP:NOR says,
Rewriting source material in your own words while retaining the substance is not considered original research.These points are clearly inscribed on the tin. Newimpartial ( talk) 19:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
the Coalition for the Advancement and Application of Psychological Science (CAAPS) supports eliminating the use of Rapid-Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD) and similar concepts for clinical and diagnostic application given the lack of rigorous empirical support for its existence. There are no sound empirical studies of ROGD and it has not been subjected to rigorous peer-review processes that are standard for clinical science. Further, there is no evidence that ROGD aligns with the lived experiences of transgender children and adolescents. ... The available research is clear that transgender people are subjected to marginalization, stigmatization, and minority stress, which have significant detrimental effects on health and well-being. Terms, such as ROGD, that further stigmatize and limit access to gender-affirming and evidence-based care violate the principles upon which CAAPS was founded and public trust in clinical science.As they summarize at the end
CAAPS supports eliminating the use of ROGD and similar concepts for clinical and diagnostic application given the lack of empirical support for its existence and its likelihood of contributing to harm and mental health burden.
Currently in the Reception section in the page, we cover reactions from news organizations and the medical community. However, we leave out the criticism from organizations such as Trans Safety Network, Health Liberation Now, and tranzycja.pl (a polish trans rights organization). Ignoring the criticism from multiple trans organizations seems ridiculous.
Health Liberation Now and Trans Safety Network are regularly cited by articles which we do already cite. However, the original sources give much more in-depth accounts.
For example, HLN's article A New Era follows the format of a standard scientific/sociological paper and all results therein are easily verified and corroborated.
Early links between Genspect and members of IFTCC and ACPeds were identified by Trans Safety Network, where researchers unveiled public promotions by Genspect of the documentary Trans Mission that featured Andre van Mol, Quentin Van Meter, and Paul Hruz.
Speaking on "gender issues" alongside James Esses of Thoughtful Therapists, on May 21st, 2022 O'Malley appeared as a workshop speaker at the FET Annual Conference in the UK.[81] An evangelical Christian group, FET has repeatedly lobbied against women's, children's and LGBTQ+ welfare, as well as having connections to the anti-gender movement through their appearance at the May 2017 World Congress of Families in Budapest, Hungary.[82] The 2017 World Congress of Families has been described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a "who’s who on the anti-LGBT and anti-choice Christian Right"[83] encompassing a mixture of legislators and religious activists, with several prominent members playing key roles in funding the push against reproductive and LGBTQ+ rights in Europe.[84]
FET's trustees include Julie Maxwell, who was also previously part of SEGM alongside O'Malley during its early inception.[72] Maxwell has a lengthy track record of anti-LGBTQ+ and anti-abortion activism as part of her work with Christian charity LoveWise,[52] plus being featured in an anti-trans DVD produced by UK Christian Creationist group Truth in Science.[91] FET, meanwhile, has previously lobbied against proposed conversion therapy bans in the UK[92(pp. 1–2)] with religious freedom as a heavy focus point. This demonstrates that high ranking members of Genspect’s team are going beyond public promotion of material from SOCIGE advocacy leaders by having a working relationship with them.
O’Malley’s workshop at the FET Annual Conference is not the first of such collaborations, nor will it be the last. On November 21st, 2021, the day after Genspect's ROGD Conference, O'Malley appeared with Bob McCoskrie of Family First NZ.[93] Another Christian-led lobby group with significant international connections pushing conversion practices under the guise of "therapeutic choice", Family First NZ was also represented at the World Congress of Families in 2017.[85] The 2021 panel of O'Malley and McCoskrie was promoted onto Genspect's Twitter, tying her collaborations with them into Genspect's formal operations.[94] Yet this was not the first time she had worked with them. Previously she joined Family First NZ’s push against Aotearoa’s pending conversion therapy ban under the banner of their ex-LGBTQ+ project Free to Live NZ (Figure 10).[95] Alongside her stood the forces of Laura Haynes, representing the IFTCC;[96] Erin Brewer, then representing Partners for Ethical Care (PEC) "on behalf of New Zealand children, primarily, who are suffering from gender dysphoria";[97] and Family First NZ’s own testimony
In addition to their direct collaborations, Genspect has promoted or directed their members to parent resources from anti-trans conversion practice advocacy groups, of both secular and conservative Christian varieties. Archive records show that both PEC and Advocates Protecting Children (APC), a project spin-off also co-founded by Erin Brewer, have been listed on Genspect’s resource list as “helpful groups”,[106] though APC has since been removed from the list.
In their “helpful groups” list Genspect also promotes Child & Parental Rights Campaign (CPR-C), a conservative Christian firm whose co-founding member Mary E. McAlister has worked as part of evangelical group Liberty Counsel to target conversion therapy bans on behalf of Christian conversion therapists Joseph Nicolosi, David Pickup, and Christopher Rosik.[67] Representing CPR-C, McAlister has also been featured in the supposedly-investigative Christian documentary "The Mind Polluters", which posits that powerful LGBTQ+ organizations are infiltrating school systems to groom children with pornography.[110]
In short, just this source outlines direct ties between Genspect and the International Federation for Therapeutic and Counseling Choice, as well two organizations present at the World Congress of Families: Family First New Zealand and the Family Education Trust. To ignore the ties between Genspect and religious conversion therapy organizations does a huge disservice to our readers, and the information is all easily verifiable. Per WP:NPOV, we have to give a neutral account. To ignore trans people pointing out the connections between Genspect and christian conversion therapy groups is miles removed from neutral and only serves to help Genspect continue to harm people. Per WP:VERIFY, all claims in these sources are backed up by extensive citations and even those who don't want to include them can't say the simple facts stated aren't verifiable or true. Per WP:NOR, the sources for these claims do exist and aren't original research on my part.
If we can't use the sources directly, we should at least be able to note what they've said, especially considering their citation in more mainstream outlets already used. Considering that, I propose we either use them directly for strictly fact based claims, or create a subsection in reception noting what they've pointed out. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 02:20, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
I saw some IP vandalism this morning and decided to check for new RS that can be used to improve the article. I'll leave a list here for other editors to do with as they will:
Best regards, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 20:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi, @ Audrey Bacques added a template for biased sources saying "since this article seems to offer sources from only one point of view"
@ Aquillion moved this template to one section, and then deleted a few sentences using Genspect as a primary source according to WP:ABOUTSELF. @ Aquillion cites the essay not policy WP:MISSIONSTATEMENT.
@ Audrey Bacques please can you elaborate your concerns?
In the mean time I am reverting the removal of those sentences. The article uses about 80 references and 4 of them are to the Genspect site. That doesn't seem excessive to me. AndyGordon ( talk) 11:24, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
unduly self-serving, which isn't an appropriate use of an WP:ABOUTSELF source. Statements such as their claims that their goal is to
"advocate for an evidence-based approach to gender-related distress, or that they are an
"non-partisan, independent organization", or that it
it was formed to combat harms done by gender identity ideologyor that it seeks to be
driven by evidence, and guard against being biased by other ideologiesare all extremely self-serving statements that absolutely require an independent secondary sources. (Any discussion about "the harms of gender ideology" also obviously violates the WP:ABOUTSELF restriction on
claims about third parties, though it's already so glaringly self-serving that pointing that out is hardly necessary.) WP:MISSIONSTATEMENT is an essay, but the basis for it is the policy restrictions on ABOUTSELF sourcing, which many people accidentally overlook when citing self-serving mission statements like these. The quotes in this section are all also inappropriate; they clearly violate the warning on WP:QUOTE that
Quotations that present rhetorical language in place of the neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias can be an underhanded method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia articles. This subject has massive amounts of coverage from a wide variety of sources across a broad range of viewpoints (the rest of the article, unlike this section, cites everything from more right-wing press like the Telegraph to academic papers to LGBT press); with so many independent sources to draw on, there is no reason why we would devote an entire section to quotes from Genspect with no secondary coverage that serve only to present unduly self-serving rhetorical flourishes like the ones above. If this is a significant part of the subject, independent secondary sources will have covered it. ABOUTSELF is for raw, neutral, uncontroversial facts like the date an organization was founded, its membership, or where it is based; it's not intended to allow organizations to define how they are covered, and certainly not intended to be used to put chest-beating polemic statements like these in the article with only a non-independent non-RS source. -- Aquillion ( talk) 16:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
At the moment this article states in wikivoice "the Cass review ... recommends exploratory therapy rather than affirmative care". This is an extraordinary claim that would need serious Medrs to back it up. At the moment this is sourced to the economist (which makes lots of unbacked Medrs claims). I think the most Wikipedia can say from this source is that "O'Malley believes the Cass review promotes exploratory therapy and that a conversion therapy ban could prevent this".
For the moment I'm going to be bold and change it.
LunaHasArrived (
talk) 14:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
I see an earlier discussion about this topic, but it was a few months ago, so I'll start a new one.
"discredited" is WP:CONTENTIOUS and not necessary when a far more factual alternative phrasing exists. There's an excellent, great quality source signed by multiple medical organisations that *very clearly* states in WP:MEDRS fashion why they oppose it - the lack of evidence. If we're making medical claims, let's use the language of the MEDRS. WP:WHITEWASHING was waved around in the edit reason but not only does that link to an irrelevant policy ( WP:NOTADVOCACY) but I also think it's pretty hasty not to address the WP:WIKIVOICE issue of using a different description than the MEDRS available on the subject.
BrigadierG ( talk) 14:48, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
used to justify limiting the rights of transgender adolescents? It is directly supported by a high-quality source. Newimpartial ( talk) 16:09, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
If a word can be replaced by one with less potential for misunderstanding, it should be.WP:NOR says,
Rewriting source material in your own words while retaining the substance is not considered original research.These points are clearly inscribed on the tin. Newimpartial ( talk) 19:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
the Coalition for the Advancement and Application of Psychological Science (CAAPS) supports eliminating the use of Rapid-Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD) and similar concepts for clinical and diagnostic application given the lack of rigorous empirical support for its existence. There are no sound empirical studies of ROGD and it has not been subjected to rigorous peer-review processes that are standard for clinical science. Further, there is no evidence that ROGD aligns with the lived experiences of transgender children and adolescents. ... The available research is clear that transgender people are subjected to marginalization, stigmatization, and minority stress, which have significant detrimental effects on health and well-being. Terms, such as ROGD, that further stigmatize and limit access to gender-affirming and evidence-based care violate the principles upon which CAAPS was founded and public trust in clinical science.As they summarize at the end
CAAPS supports eliminating the use of ROGD and similar concepts for clinical and diagnostic application given the lack of empirical support for its existence and its likelihood of contributing to harm and mental health burden.
Currently in the Reception section in the page, we cover reactions from news organizations and the medical community. However, we leave out the criticism from organizations such as Trans Safety Network, Health Liberation Now, and tranzycja.pl (a polish trans rights organization). Ignoring the criticism from multiple trans organizations seems ridiculous.
Health Liberation Now and Trans Safety Network are regularly cited by articles which we do already cite. However, the original sources give much more in-depth accounts.
For example, HLN's article A New Era follows the format of a standard scientific/sociological paper and all results therein are easily verified and corroborated.
Early links between Genspect and members of IFTCC and ACPeds were identified by Trans Safety Network, where researchers unveiled public promotions by Genspect of the documentary Trans Mission that featured Andre van Mol, Quentin Van Meter, and Paul Hruz.
Speaking on "gender issues" alongside James Esses of Thoughtful Therapists, on May 21st, 2022 O'Malley appeared as a workshop speaker at the FET Annual Conference in the UK.[81] An evangelical Christian group, FET has repeatedly lobbied against women's, children's and LGBTQ+ welfare, as well as having connections to the anti-gender movement through their appearance at the May 2017 World Congress of Families in Budapest, Hungary.[82] The 2017 World Congress of Families has been described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a "who’s who on the anti-LGBT and anti-choice Christian Right"[83] encompassing a mixture of legislators and religious activists, with several prominent members playing key roles in funding the push against reproductive and LGBTQ+ rights in Europe.[84]
FET's trustees include Julie Maxwell, who was also previously part of SEGM alongside O'Malley during its early inception.[72] Maxwell has a lengthy track record of anti-LGBTQ+ and anti-abortion activism as part of her work with Christian charity LoveWise,[52] plus being featured in an anti-trans DVD produced by UK Christian Creationist group Truth in Science.[91] FET, meanwhile, has previously lobbied against proposed conversion therapy bans in the UK[92(pp. 1–2)] with religious freedom as a heavy focus point. This demonstrates that high ranking members of Genspect’s team are going beyond public promotion of material from SOCIGE advocacy leaders by having a working relationship with them.
O’Malley’s workshop at the FET Annual Conference is not the first of such collaborations, nor will it be the last. On November 21st, 2021, the day after Genspect's ROGD Conference, O'Malley appeared with Bob McCoskrie of Family First NZ.[93] Another Christian-led lobby group with significant international connections pushing conversion practices under the guise of "therapeutic choice", Family First NZ was also represented at the World Congress of Families in 2017.[85] The 2021 panel of O'Malley and McCoskrie was promoted onto Genspect's Twitter, tying her collaborations with them into Genspect's formal operations.[94] Yet this was not the first time she had worked with them. Previously she joined Family First NZ’s push against Aotearoa’s pending conversion therapy ban under the banner of their ex-LGBTQ+ project Free to Live NZ (Figure 10).[95] Alongside her stood the forces of Laura Haynes, representing the IFTCC;[96] Erin Brewer, then representing Partners for Ethical Care (PEC) "on behalf of New Zealand children, primarily, who are suffering from gender dysphoria";[97] and Family First NZ’s own testimony
In addition to their direct collaborations, Genspect has promoted or directed their members to parent resources from anti-trans conversion practice advocacy groups, of both secular and conservative Christian varieties. Archive records show that both PEC and Advocates Protecting Children (APC), a project spin-off also co-founded by Erin Brewer, have been listed on Genspect’s resource list as “helpful groups”,[106] though APC has since been removed from the list.
In their “helpful groups” list Genspect also promotes Child & Parental Rights Campaign (CPR-C), a conservative Christian firm whose co-founding member Mary E. McAlister has worked as part of evangelical group Liberty Counsel to target conversion therapy bans on behalf of Christian conversion therapists Joseph Nicolosi, David Pickup, and Christopher Rosik.[67] Representing CPR-C, McAlister has also been featured in the supposedly-investigative Christian documentary "The Mind Polluters", which posits that powerful LGBTQ+ organizations are infiltrating school systems to groom children with pornography.[110]
In short, just this source outlines direct ties between Genspect and the International Federation for Therapeutic and Counseling Choice, as well two organizations present at the World Congress of Families: Family First New Zealand and the Family Education Trust. To ignore the ties between Genspect and religious conversion therapy organizations does a huge disservice to our readers, and the information is all easily verifiable. Per WP:NPOV, we have to give a neutral account. To ignore trans people pointing out the connections between Genspect and christian conversion therapy groups is miles removed from neutral and only serves to help Genspect continue to harm people. Per WP:VERIFY, all claims in these sources are backed up by extensive citations and even those who don't want to include them can't say the simple facts stated aren't verifiable or true. Per WP:NOR, the sources for these claims do exist and aren't original research on my part.
If we can't use the sources directly, we should at least be able to note what they've said, especially considering their citation in more mainstream outlets already used. Considering that, I propose we either use them directly for strictly fact based claims, or create a subsection in reception noting what they've pointed out. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 02:20, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
I saw some IP vandalism this morning and decided to check for new RS that can be used to improve the article. I'll leave a list here for other editors to do with as they will:
Best regards, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 20:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi, @ Audrey Bacques added a template for biased sources saying "since this article seems to offer sources from only one point of view"
@ Aquillion moved this template to one section, and then deleted a few sentences using Genspect as a primary source according to WP:ABOUTSELF. @ Aquillion cites the essay not policy WP:MISSIONSTATEMENT.
@ Audrey Bacques please can you elaborate your concerns?
In the mean time I am reverting the removal of those sentences. The article uses about 80 references and 4 of them are to the Genspect site. That doesn't seem excessive to me. AndyGordon ( talk) 11:24, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
unduly self-serving, which isn't an appropriate use of an WP:ABOUTSELF source. Statements such as their claims that their goal is to
"advocate for an evidence-based approach to gender-related distress, or that they are an
"non-partisan, independent organization", or that it
it was formed to combat harms done by gender identity ideologyor that it seeks to be
driven by evidence, and guard against being biased by other ideologiesare all extremely self-serving statements that absolutely require an independent secondary sources. (Any discussion about "the harms of gender ideology" also obviously violates the WP:ABOUTSELF restriction on
claims about third parties, though it's already so glaringly self-serving that pointing that out is hardly necessary.) WP:MISSIONSTATEMENT is an essay, but the basis for it is the policy restrictions on ABOUTSELF sourcing, which many people accidentally overlook when citing self-serving mission statements like these. The quotes in this section are all also inappropriate; they clearly violate the warning on WP:QUOTE that
Quotations that present rhetorical language in place of the neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias can be an underhanded method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia articles. This subject has massive amounts of coverage from a wide variety of sources across a broad range of viewpoints (the rest of the article, unlike this section, cites everything from more right-wing press like the Telegraph to academic papers to LGBT press); with so many independent sources to draw on, there is no reason why we would devote an entire section to quotes from Genspect with no secondary coverage that serve only to present unduly self-serving rhetorical flourishes like the ones above. If this is a significant part of the subject, independent secondary sources will have covered it. ABOUTSELF is for raw, neutral, uncontroversial facts like the date an organization was founded, its membership, or where it is based; it's not intended to allow organizations to define how they are covered, and certainly not intended to be used to put chest-beating polemic statements like these in the article with only a non-independent non-RS source. -- Aquillion ( talk) 16:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
At the moment this article states in wikivoice "the Cass review ... recommends exploratory therapy rather than affirmative care". This is an extraordinary claim that would need serious Medrs to back it up. At the moment this is sourced to the economist (which makes lots of unbacked Medrs claims). I think the most Wikipedia can say from this source is that "O'Malley believes the Cass review promotes exploratory therapy and that a conversion therapy ban could prevent this".
For the moment I'm going to be bold and change it.
LunaHasArrived (
talk) 14:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)