Talk:Anti-LGBTQ rhetoric

"Anti-LGBTQ" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Anti-LGBTQ has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 13 § Anti-LGBTQ until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 03:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

"Conspiracy"

This article claims that the idea of a gay lobby is a conspiracy theory and does not exist, but how do you explain organizations like Human Rights Campaign, ILGA-Europe, Stonewall for example? Shoshin000 (talk) 08:46, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

@Shoshin000: The article does not say that pro-LGBTQ lobbying does not exist, or that it is a conspiracy theory. It says: According to the German newspaper Der Tagesspiegel, advocating for LGBT rights could accurately be called lobbying, but the term Schwulen-Lobby ('gay lobby') is insulting because it is used to suggest a powerful conspiracy which does not actually exist. I think that is a fine summary of the source. Do you disagree? -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 11:03, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

My bad, I misread it as "could not accurately be called lobbying" Shoshin000 (talk) 13:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Contemporary Rhetorical Criticism

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2024 and 18 November 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ShianneMC (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Victoriageorge-wayne.

— Assignment last updated by Rorithomas (talk) 03:39, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Should Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria be included in Anti-trans rhetoric

Since there are sections on gay as a choice or gay as recruitment, I think it might be good to add rapid onset gender dysphoria since it similarly treats being transgender as a social contagion. Urchincrawler (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Hm, maybe. Given the controversial nature of this, we would need a strong and authoritative source explicitly describing "ROGD" as hate rhetoric rather than plain old bunk science. The CAAPS position statement appears to come close, saying: 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. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 02:55, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I think it qualifies as anti-lgbt rhetoric (whether out of willful ignorance or hate) because it's not just bad science. It's bad science specifically used to argue against gender affirming care. I'd consider it comparable to bad science that being gay is a choice. It's not just wrong, it's harmful.

Here are a couple more sources that acknowledge rapid onset gender dysphoria both as bad science and as anti-trans rhetoric.

Research article in The Sociological Review: "The term ‘rapid-onset gender dysphoria’ (ROGD) was coined in 2016 to describe an alleged epidemic of youth coming out as trans ‘out of the blue’ due to social contagion and mental illness. The term reflects a deliberate attempt to weaponise scientific-sounding language to dismiss mounting empirical evidence of the benefits of transition."

Article in Pediatrics, the Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics "The deleterious effect of unfounded hypotheses stigmatizing TGD youth, particularly the ROGD hypothesis, cannot be overstated, especially in current and longstanding public policy debates. Indeed, the notion of ROGD has been used by legislators to prohibit TGD youth from accessing gender-affirming medical care, despite the considerable methodological limitations underlying the generation of this hypothesis, as well as the unequivocal support for gender-affirming medical care by multiple major medical organizations, including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, and the American Psychiatric Association."

Southern Poverty Law Center "Because ROGD operates on the assumption that gender identity is an “ideology” and a “contagion” that spreads quicker in spaces that affirm LGBTQ+ identities, in addition to making the case for restricting access to affirming health care, ROGD provides a convenient justification for restricting positive portrayals of LGBTQ+ people in schools and libraries, free expression of LGBTQ+ communities (like drag performances in public spaces) and restrictions on trans kids playing sports."

Urchincrawler (talk) 10:39, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I would agree that both rapid-onset gender dysphoria and autogynephilia should be listed as anti-LGBTQ rhetoric; they are both junk science used to promote transphobic beliefs. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 11:37, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Raladic (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the name "ROGD" helps people understand things, but social contagion definitely does exist (teenage girls are notorious for it, from religious frenzies of past centuries, the sudden rise of anorexia in the second half of the 20th century, the 1983 West Bank fainting epidemic, the 1962 Tanganyika laughter epidemic, and on and on -- if you look at List of mass panic cases, almost every single event in the "2000-present" section has the word "girl" in its description), so I don't think that the article should emphatically deny the existence of social contagion. AnonMoos (talk) 16:00, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the existence of all social contagion has to be denied to delve into why gender dysphoria as a social contagion is harmful and scientifically unsupported. Urchincrawler (talk) 18:24, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't know or much care whether the specific term "ROGD" has any scientific validity or not (I don't want to get involved in that controversy), but the graph of the skyrocketing number of psychological-based breast amputations in the 2010s probably has a resemblance to the graph of the skyrocketing number of anorexia cases in the 1970s, and I care a lot about whether Wikipedia says things which are factually false. Why would established principles of teen girl psychology, observed during a number of centuries across many different cultures, suddenly not apply in this one domain? AnonMoos (talk) 20:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Because there are scientific studies that say that it is not the case. I would also suggest that "the skyrocketing number of psychological-based breast amputations" among "teen girls" is a very non-neutral way of describing an over-reported moral panic about young trans men having increased access to information and gender-affirming care. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 21:28, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Glad I'm not the only one who found the focus on "teen girl psychology" odd. Urchincrawler (talk) 21:37, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

If you are comparing 1 social contagion to another (ROGD to anorexia), and using that to imply calling ROGD a scientifically unproven and harmful hypothesis would be "factually false", then yes you are arguing the scientific validity of it.

Your argument seems to be based on inapt comparison. People who are thin are perceived as pretty and can get some social advantage because of that. Meanwhile, being trans has many social disadvantages.

Finally, there is the matter of correlation vs causation. Similar to increases in anorexia, there has been a massive spike in left handedness between the 1910s and 1940s. Does that make left-handedness a social contagion like anorexia? Obviously not. You are assuming that because both have significant increases that the causes must be the same. Urchincrawler (talk) 21:34, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

@AnonMoos: Wikipedia is not a platform for original commentary or speculation, and there is no obligation to weigh in on matters with which you have limited familiarity. If you want to see what experts have to say about concepts like Rapid-onset gender dysphoria... Well, it would be nice if there were some kind of website for this purpose. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 01:04, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

@RoxySaunders So for clarification are you for or against the addition of rapid onset gender dysphoria to the anti trans rhetoric section, or are you still considering? I just want to gauge how much agreement there is since so far it's me and Owen for the inclusion of it, and Anon against. Urchincrawler (talk) 01:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think we can include this. My hesitance is mostly a desire to avoid protracted disputes that are avoidable with definitive sourcing; thank you for supplying more. Florence Ashley's a deliberate attempt to weaponize scientific-sounding language and Jack Turban's unfounded hypotheses stigmatizing TGD youth are compelling. I would support adding a section titled Social contagion speaking broadly on the related tropes of ROGD, transdoctrination, transtrender, etc., and attributing these attitudes.

Bonus points if there exists a source which draws the connection between this and the similar Gay Recruitment panic of the 20th century, or making note of the double standard of "confused"/"indoctrinated" transmasc victim, vs. the evil transfeminine predator. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 01:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

How about

Florence Ashley (2020). "A critical commentary on 'rapid-onset gender dysphoria'" (PDF). The Sociological Review Monographs. 68 (4): 779–799. doi:10.1177/0038026120934693.

The link is to a copy on the author's own website, found by googling the DOI — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 15:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)