Talk:Chloe Cole

Do No Harm

• Cole, who turns 20 this month, works as a patient advocate for the new nonprofit Do No Harm, a leader of anti-transgender legislation, and charges up to $5,000 to speak at public events about gender ideology, according to the Young America’s Foundation, which represents conservative personalities such as Ben Shapiro.LATimes
• The organization had lobbyists registered in 2022 in at least three states — Kansas, Missouri and Tennessee — and in Florida in 2023. People associated with the group have appeared as witnesses in statehouses, including Chloe Cole, 18, listed on its website as a “patient advocate” who has spoken to lawmakers about her gender-transition reversal. ... Cole told the Kansas news outlet The Reflector this year that Do No Harm was reimbursing her travel expenses as she testified before state lawmakers. She and her lawyer did not respond to requests for comment from the AP.APNews
• In addition to propping up medical experts, Do No Harm has paid for activist Chloe Cole’s travel when she testifies before state legislatures in support of bans on gender-affirming care for minors, Cole has said. (Cole, reached through her lawyer, did not respond to a request for comment.) Cole, 19, has testified before several legislatures about detransitioning after taking puberty blockers and hormones and having a double mastectomy.Huffpost
• The ADF and conservative media outlets have courted these detransitioners in the U.S. and U.K. (Astor, 2023; O'Donnell, 2020). In several U.S. state legislatures, detransitioner Chloe Cole has supported bans as a member of the patient and physician advocacy group Do No Harm (n.d.)Elsevier Social Science and Medicine
• Other members of the group [Do No Harm] include plastic surgeon Dr. Richard Bosshardt, a fellow with FAIR in Medicine; podcaster, therapist and GETA member Stephanie Winn; ACPeds member Miriam Grossman; and anti-trans detransition activist Chloe Cole.SPLC and One of LiMandri’s current clients is detransitioner Chloe Cole of the group Do No Harm, who has also traveled the country testifying against gender-affirming care in recent years.SPLC
• Los Angeles based journalist Lil Kalish reported that Cole spoke as an advocate for Do No Harm, a group of conservative medical professionals who are skeptical of gender-affirming care, and presented the proposal on behalf of the National Legal and Policy CenterLA Blade

Chloe Cole has been widely reported in RS to be a paid patient advocate for Do No Harm (organization) for years now. This article doesn't mention DNH once. Does anyone object to mentioning this? Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:50, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I don’t but you may want to keep it to the first three sources and the SPLC. More ironclad in terms of reliability. Snokalok (talk) 20:10, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@Springee please self-revert your edit removing this detail, there is a consensus to include it. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:09, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

No, there isn't a consensus to include it. It was extensively discussed last year and no consensus for inclusion occurred. Also, reimbursing travel isn't the same as being a paid advocate. Springee (talk) 23:14, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

It was discussed alongside 5 other proposed additions to the article and was supported by quite a few editors. This discussion is focused on the single addition, mentioned new sources such as the SPLC, and nobody weighted in to object. Please explain your objections to the content and proposed RS. I have pinged WP:LGBT so we can allow other voices to weigh in. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:19, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

This appears to be the most recent discussion[1]. Can you link to the discussion you are thinking of? Springee (talk) 23:21, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

That is the one discussing 5 proposed additions. The most recent discussion is Talk:Chloe Cole#Do No Harm. I proposed this July 2024 in light of new sources, @Snokalok agreed, nobody objected.

@Pincrete objected to the words "admitted to" and the description of DNH in this article. You did too. The text I added neither desribes DNH or uses those words. KcMastrpc objected. @Sideswipe9th and @Elli supported it. That puts us at 4 users supporting the content, and 3 objecting on grounds no longer applicable. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I was not involved in the discussion last year, but I concur with your summary here, that there wasn't a universal objection to the mention in the prior discussion, only to some other details as I already outlined below. I reverted the undo after I came to that same independent conclusion, as I can't find a policy-based reason that would warrant omission of the neutrally stated and RS supported statement of the connection to DNH. However @Kcmastrpc immediately undid the revert without reading my message below (despite my edit summary specifically referencing the talk page) or yours here that summarized the prior consensus. Raladic (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate your effort in using the talk page to gain consensus, however, just because no one objected to the multiple additions you proposed here doesn't override the established no consensus for inclusion. WP:BRD, and we're here, discussing. Kcmastrpc (talk) 23:24, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Multiple additions? This discussion concerns only one addition[2] and Springee's revert[3]. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:31, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I vaguely recall this conversation last year, but if my memory recollection isn't mistaken I believe @Springee is correct here, there isn't consensus for inclusion. @YFNS, could you provide a reference link to where you believe otherwise? Kcmastrpc (talk) 23:17, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Chloe_Cole/Archive_8#Expanding_the_article appears to indicate that there was consensus that the mention of DNH did exist, specifically this comment appears to indicate there was some consensus to mention the DNH link, so their mention feels warranted, based on my quick read of that discussion and the points brought here.

So I believe that @Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist request of @Springee to self revert their undo was warranted.

There seemed to have been some amount of discussion whether some other mention about a Ohio bill were warranted, but those are separate to the mention of DNH to begin with. Raladic (talk) 23:31, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I disagree, it was discussed that the sources said that, but I don't see a broad agreement that it was DUE. WP:SILENTCON withstanding, I don't see how a mention of this trivial fact about her travel expenses is DUE for a BLP. Was there any commentary on how this had any significant impact on her decision to lobby on behalf of them? Kcmastrpc (talk) 00:07, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

The (removed) text is fairly neutral and adequately sourced (certainly that DNH describe her as a 'patient advocate'). I'm neutral about inclusion, it's relevant 'background', but do we normally bother to describe who is paying someone's travel expenses?Pincrete (talk) 06:00, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I think her role as patient advocate is pretty obviously worth including. I don't, however, see what is so special about them covering her travel expenses. Most organizations do that for their volunteers. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 09:40, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

@Maddy from Celeste Not all do, but I think we should just follow the RS - they find it notable so we should include it.

@Kcmastrpc There is a clear consensus to include this material, please self-revert your removal.[4] Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:13, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

A few editors have asked what is DUE about the travel expenses, and I concur. Just because a RS covers something, WP:VNOT reminds us that notability does not guarantee inclusion. I believe her connection to the group as a speaker at events they organize is likely DUE though, which other editors seem to support. Kcmastrpc (talk) 23:31, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree, the travel expense part is clearly not DUE and adding it with a claim of "per talk page" is not a good look. Noting that she is a patient advocate (so long as the description of Do No Harm is impartial) seems reasonable. Also, unless Cole is advocating against gender affirming care for adults, it should be clear she is advocating on behalf of minors. I believe that was also a point previously discussed. Springee (talk) 00:32, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect age for gender dysphoria diagnosis

−

Cole says that she was diagnosed with [[gender dysphoria]] at 9 years old and was treated by [[Kaiser Permanente]] clinics in the [[San Francisco Bay Area]] between the ages of 13 and 17.

+

Cole says that she was treated by [[Kaiser Permanente]] clinics in the [[San Francisco Bay Area]] between the ages of 13 and 17.

The San Francisco Chronicle incorrectly cites Cole's lawsuit for its claim that she said she was diagnosed with gender dysphoria at age nine. The lawsuit states that Cole received a diagnosis "indicating an 'encounter for school problem'" at nine years old, but there is nothing to suggest this diagnosis was gender dysphoria. A date for Cole's gender dysphoria diagnosis is not given in the lawsuit.

Hecknogmos (talk) 15:09, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Quoted from the cited article, "At just 9 years old, Chloe began suffering from gender dysphoria. She first expressed her struggle with gender dysphoria to her pediatrician when she was 12 years old." The suggested change omits Chloe's self-diagnosis.

I recommend, "Cole says that she first expressed gender dysphoria when was 9 years old, and disclosed her condition to her pediatrician at age 12. The lawsuit claims that between the ages of 13 and 16 years old, Kaiser Permanente physicians placed Chloe on puberty blockers, off-label cross-sex hormone treatment, and performed a double mastectomy on her to remove her breasts." This prose is supported by the cited source. Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:22, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Updated per self-recommendation. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:06, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Slightly modified your change as you have her 'expressing' gender dysphoria at 9 and 'disclosing' it to her doctor when 12. I've changed those to 'experiencing' and 'discussing with'. Pincrete (talk) 17:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

@Pincrete Thank you! Good edit. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:11, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

References

Trump Endorsement

I was unable to find any WP:RS that covered her recent announcement re: Trump; per WP:TWITTER, does this fall into rule #2 about a third party? I'm wondering if we should exclude it for now (until such time a RS decides to report on it)? Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Quite a few of the recent additions are sourced to primary sources and probably should be reverted. For example, quite a bit of the newly added material is only sourced to a court filings. I think this along with the inclusion of her legal name was already discussed and rejected. Springee (talk) 14:51, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't have a strong feeling either way, it's not very controversial given Cole's activism, but I'm at AN/I for boomerang at the moment and don't want to ruffle any other feathers. If another editor feel it doesn't belong I'm not going to object to removal. Kcmastrpc (talk) 18:52, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

If she were actively campaigning for a candidate, I could see it as worth recording, but this is simply recording a voting intention and I don't think deserves to be recorded - especially as it is self-sourced. I will remove.Pincrete (talk) 05:50, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 September 2024

This article states Cole has a boyfriend: https://abacityblog.com/do-not-transition-your-kids-17-yr-old-chloe-cole-who-transitioned-back-from-a-boy-reveals-how-surgery-ruined-her-body/

She's been romantically linked to Colin Wright, Matt Walsh, and recently Maia Poet. Scarbroughfair (talk) 08:24, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Scarbroughfair, it isn't clear what change you propose, but even so, it's unlikely that anything about her 'dating' or otherwise would be considered sufficiently notable to put into this article and unlikely this source would be considered a reliable source anyhow, since it appears to be a blog.Pincrete (talk) 09:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: per response above. PianoDan (talk) 16:01, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 October 2024

Request to strike underlined segments from the following paragraph:

Cole says that she first experienced gender dysphoria when she was 9 years old, and discussed her condition with her pediatrician for the first time at age 12. Cole has filed a lawsuit that claims that between the ages of 13 and 16 years old, Kaiser Permanente physicians placed Chloe on puberty blockers, off-label cross-sex hormone treatment, and performed a double mastectomy on her resulting in the removal of her breasts.

'off label' for the following reasons:

1. The term is not used in the source.
2. The usage of 'off-label' here is slanted. The phrase is often invoked (example) in relation to cross-sex Hormones to imply a level of danger or malpractice in their having been prescribed. Most - if not all - cross sex hormones are prescribed off-label currently in the United States, and off-label prescriptions are common for a number of drugs as shown by List of drugs known for off-label use.

'on her resulting in the removal of her breasts' for redundancy. It is just repeating what a double mastectomy is. Relm (talk) 14:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of both statements, the source doesn't use those statements so it seems best to remove them. LunaHasArrived (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 10:35, 21 October 2024 (UTC)