Talk:DIY transgender hormone therapy

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles

Cut sources

I removed the following sources in the process of editing, but they may still be useful.

Metastasio, Antonio; Negri, Attilio; Martinotti, Giovanni; Corazza, Ornella (May 2018). "Transitioning Bodies. The Case of Self-Prescribing Sexual Hormones in Gender Affirmation in Individuals Attending Psychiatric Services". Brain Sciences. 8 (5): 88. doi:10.3390/brainsci8050088. ISSN 2076-3425. PMC 5977079. PMID 29757929.
Redcay, Alex; Bergquist, Kathleen; Luquet, Wade (18 August 2021). "On the Basis of Gender: A Medical-Legal Review of Barriers to Healthcare for Transgender and Gender-Expansive Patients". Social Work in Public Health. 36 (6): 615–627. doi:10.1080/19371918.2021.1942378. PMID 34340636. S2CID 236885228.

-- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 16:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Safety section

It's not clear to me how the content in this section relates to safety. Are there any studies done of the safety or even poison control reports that are used for safety of self-administered substances? Under what basis is it condemned by medical professionals? Note that other sources say that there is little comment from medical professionals. (t · c) buidhe 17:45, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's based on this sentence in the cited source: Public health and biomedical literature characterize DIY HT as a “risky” or “troubling” behavior that should be eliminated. I agree there's probably a better way to say it; the source only cites two primary sources which probably isn't enough for "generally", and it doesn't specify that the reason it is condemned is because it is deemed unsafe. I'm not feeling great currently, so you will probably have a better way of putting it than me. :) -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 18:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My preference would be to omit the information unless there are MEDRS quality sources that comment on the safety. The one you cite is a "qualitative study" which I don't think is usable. I was careful not to include any MEDRS content in the original draft because I wasn't sure if there was adequate sourcing. (t · c) buidhe 18:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I'm not very experienced with MEDRS stuff. I went to WP:MEDRS and searched for "qualitative", and found this article linked at the bottom, which specifically endorses qualitative studies as reliable medical sources. Regardless, the statement in question is just a summary of two other articles, in the "Introduction" section of the cited article. Thoughts? -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 18:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Individual studies of any kind are not usually reliable sources for MEDRS information. Usually you would want at minimum a literature review and I know SandyGeorgia only believes in citing systematic reviews although other editors don't always agree. (t · c) buidhe 19:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense; I'm fine with this outcome until we hopefully get some good sources on this. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 19:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]