Talk:Irreversible Damage/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Misgendering throughout the article

The article says things like playing a driving role in girls' decision to identify as transgender and (now) The girls Shrier describes in the book showed no discomfort in their female bodies until they reached puberty (the one that caught my attention). So these comments are about trans men i.e. boys? We can't misgender people in Wikipedia's words. See MOS:GENDERID's Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns [...] that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. Given that the "girls" named in the book presumably mostly or entirely identify as male to date, including Turner who is mentioned by name as part of the book, this is a serious BLP concern. Even anonymous or generic description of trans men as "girls" is an assumption that Shrier is correct (violating WP:NPOV). This is particularly important as the topic must abide by WP:FRINGE as it is largely about a misinterpretation of the hypothesis (not theory) rapid onset gender dysphoria. — Bilorv (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

 Partly done I've addressed where this is happening in wikivoice, and in one direct quote that was easily paraphrased, but there are still two direct quotes from Shrier that refer to AFAB individuals as "girls". I wanted to wait to get some more input on whether they ought to be removed or paraphrased, or left in place as direct quotes, before making further changes. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I can see no evidence of what gender-terms these "girls" (Shrier's word) wish to be used in reference to them. It's arrogance and bigoted wrong to "presumably" (Bilorv's word) assume their gender as boys, transmen or whatever other Original Research the editor above is proposing. And may be misgendering in itself. Is there a Reliable Source to what these "girls" in the book, now collectively wish to referred to? CatCafe (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

It appears CatCafe is determined to edit-war misgendering into the article. :( IHateAccounts (talk) 02:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC) - strike through because sockpuppet account

The "What’s ailing these girls?” bit is direct text from the source. We don't have to like or agree with the source, but the current including "girls" better conveys the (perhaps deeply misguided) sense of the source's meaning. If we have other sources critiquing this particular source, possible they should be included, but we should not be re-writing the review to make it say what we wish it said. -Pengortm (talk) 02:12, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the paraphrased text conveys the meaning any worse; in context, I'd say that the paraphrased sentence flows a little better than the version with the longer direct quote. XOR'easter (talk) 02:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The edit summary doesn't make much sense to me, I'm afraid. Paraphrasing is standard practice, not OR. The phrasing the demographic profiled in the book is plainly descriptive and utterly noncommittal about how the individuals so profiled self-identify. XOR'easter (talk) 02:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@CatCafe: Did you actually look at my change? I did not specify the gender of the people Shrier is writing about, I left it only to what is sourced. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

The book itself describes these children as identifying as male, and this is documented in the sources discussing the book. I agree that it would be better to have an independent source relate their identities, but I don't think that taking Shrier at her word that these children identify as male counts as WP:OR. I feel like the safest decision and the one which is clearest to the reader is to be clear that the children discussed in the book are AFAB, but then refer to them using either gender neutral or male language and pronouns (I don't specifically recall if the children discussed are all male, or if some are nonbinary). Regarding the quotes, I think the best way to proceed is to paraphrase when possible. This is good practice in general (see WP:QUOTEFARM), and here it has the additional benefit of keeping the article's language more in line with policy. Overusing quotes misgendering and/or deadnaming trans people could be seen as trying to weasel out of MOS:GENDERID. As a side note, @CatCafe: it's probably best not to call other editor's reading of policy as arrogant or bigoted. Srey Sros^talk 02:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

- Whether we agree with the ROGD or not, the fact is the book is about ROGD, and as the source from Turner says: "The girls she describes... show no discomfort in their female bodies until puberty". So yes it is accurate to say that the "girls" are AFAB as editor SreySros correctly states, but it is also accurate to say that these "girls" were also once girls. So when Shrier or the sources use the term "girls" they do so as a historical fact of the group as a whole - it's accurate, not offensive as it's not singling a person out - and I don't see why quotes saying this need to be whitewashed.

- Additionally, I do not see any evidence to what these people as a collective wish to be gendered as now - maybe as boys, trans men, gender-fluid, two-spirit etc. - or indeed girls if they have detransitioned back to girls/women today - who knows. And for me to 'presume' (as other editors do) what gender wikivoice should refer to them as, would be clear arrogance IMHO. CatCafe (talk) 05:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

You seem to be angry at me for something that I didn't say. If you re-read my comment you'll notice that I specifically refrained from suggesting an alternate wording such as using the term trans men in the article. GorillaWarfare additionally avoided using that term in the article. And I didn't give an opinion on whether ROGD is true or not (which would be an opinion), but the stage at which it is and isn't accepted in the relevant academic field (a fact). So it's not clear who is being "arrogant" here. And yet the book (I don't know if you've read it; I'll concede that I haven't) seems to be quite clearly referring to AFAB people who identify as male at some point in their lives, so "girls" violates MOS:GENDERID. Particularly as many individuals are named in the book. You say I do not see any evidence to what these people as a collective wish to be gendered as now - maybe as boys, trans men, gender-fluid, two-spirit etc. Well exactly! This is my point as well. Where I don't follow is that you say you don't 'presume' (as other editors do) what gender wikivoice should refer to them as. But you support the current description as "girls", do you not? This is what you've reverted to reinstate. So that is an expressed opinion on wikivoice gender. Meanwhile, I expressly refrained from suggesting what gender wikivoice should refer to them as.

Unfortunately, common language does not work the way you are saying. If I come out as gay at the age of 15, there's no "historical fact" of me being straight up to that date and gay from then on. There is a historical fact of me not publicly identifying as gay before that date. But we can see that it would not be right to refer to me as straight before that date or call me "historically straight" or refer to groups of people like me as "straight people", even in a historical context. The same applies to gender self-identification. With respect to that, I could read your comment as a suggestion to use "assigned female at birth children" in place of where the article uses "girls", and I'd be willing to agree with that as a sensible suggestion. — Bilorv (talk) 11:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

A lot of waffle Bilory, avoiding that you made the presumptuous statements: "So these comments are about trans men i.e. boys" and "Given that the "girls" named in the book presumably mostly or entirely identify as male to date". These statements are outrageous and you have no right to presume any gender-fluid persons' gender without them articulating it, whatever righteousness you believe you hold. So yes, you're out-of-line and have no idea of how to unequivocally respect gender-questioning people with the refrain and unwavering respect they deserve. I'm just going with the sources by reverting edits back to the original where they happened to use the term 'girls'. Gender assumptions like yours may be dangerous, so yes, presumptuous comments such as yours in the current gender debate will make people angry. Also FYI gender-identity and same-sex-attraction are not comparable things and parallels can't be drawn as you did above - you should read up on the differences. CatCafe (talk) 11:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Please direct personal attacks and other willful misunderstandings at my talk page so that other readers don't have to waste their energy on them. — Bilorv (talk) 13:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• As an example, this sentence in the lead should stay as is: In the book Shrier accuses social media of playing a driving role in girls' decisions to identify as transgender... "Shrier accuses" is WP:In-text attribution, so it's fine. The book is specifically about what she calls "girls"; trying to expunge every use of the word and replace it with "youths" or similar is completely misleading and thus false. As for quotes, well, if reviewers are choosing to say "girls", should we really hide that? MOS:GENDERID has to do with specific identifiable people that our text talks about. If a statement is a quote, has attribution, and is about the book's idea in a vague general sense, there isn't a need to rewrite that. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:38, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Crossroads: I'd like to hear the rest of your reasoning here because this isn't it in full. I'm sure we would both oppose the sentence In the book, Icke accuses the Jewish lizards who run the government of propelling the world into global fascism. The reason is that it doesn't matter that we're referencing a specific person's views—it is still a tacit assumption of the premise (Jewish lizards run the government) to write such a sentence. This isn't an attempt to compare Icke and Shrier, but to illustrate how the syntax of the sentence makes an assumption you have not yet explained. We can use the words that the author uses, sure, but then we need to consider where it is necessary to demarcate the terms as such: for instance, In the book Shrier accuses social media of playing a driving role in what she sees as girls deciding to identify as transgender. This sentence doesn't assume anything of Shrier, but it does now imply that "what she sees" may be contested. So to use this sentence we'd need a compelling case that Shrier's views are contested. Luckily, it seems that the current version of the article (in particular the highest-quality sources it gives) does make a case for that. So that might be a fruitful wording to discuss further. And to be clear: nothing I've referred to in my comments so far is meant to apply to direct quotes, which would need much more subtle arguments about what is and isn't implied by our editorial choice of which words to begin them on and how to incorporate them within sentences. — Bilorv (talk) 11:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Bilorv, more waffle from you, now discussing the 'Jews', and prior to this potentially misgendering people - I'm not surprised! Also not interested in being exposed to you telling us about the theory of "Jewish lizards who run the government of propelling the world into global fascism" that you feel is so important to republish here for our illumination. Your 'Jewish' addition to this debate is ridiculous and really not relevant. Perhaps you should keep your labelling of oppressed people and/or groups to yourself. CatCafe (talk) 12:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Please direct personal attacks and other willful misunderstandings at my talk page so that other readers don't have to waste their energy on them. — Bilorv (talk) 13:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

While any analogy to David Icke is inevitably ... colorful, I think that Bilorv's point is essentially sound. (Should a driving in be a driving role in?) XOR'easter (talk) 15:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

It should be, XOR'easter, thanks. I've corrected that in the above message now. — Bilorv (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Bilorv, your comparison sentence is phrased differently, so I don't see that it fits. New proposal below. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

If Bilorv's example isn't similar enough, here's an attempt at conveying their point using the same syntax. Hypothetically, if I were to write a book accusing American politicians of being lizards, and I wrote that social media encouraged them to take over the world, it would be improper for the Wikipedia page about the book to read In the book, SreySros accuses social media of playing a driving role in lizard people deciding to take over the world. It's an absurd example, but I think it gets the point across that having the sentence in wikivoice is an endorsement of her characterization of the subjects of her book. Srey Sros^talk 20:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

It certainly is an absurd example. Our wise and just lizard overlords would never permit you even to write, much less to publish such scurrilous allegations. Newimpartial (talk) 20:38, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• I think the lead paragraph should be junked and rewritten entirely. Some of the other changes were fine, but She describes what she sees as difficulties facing teenaged girls -> She describes what she sees as difficulties facing teenagers misrepresents Shrier. Cheers, gnu57 16:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

  How does this misrepresent Shrier? She is referring to teenagers, no? From what I can tell, she is referring to AFAB teenagers, but we should not be referring to them in wikivoice as "teenaged girls" because it is not clear that all of them identify as such. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

  I think the idea is that Shrier is particularly concerned about AFAB teenagers and doesn't really write about AMAB teenagers, so omitting the gender is a bit too vague. Referring to them as "AFAB teenagers" would be a clear and accurate way of specifying Shrier's focus. — Bilorv (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

  We should avoid WP:JARGON like "assigned female at birth" (and all the more so "AFAB") if at all possible. I know that those of us who edit this topic a lot know what it means, but most people are not familiar with this phrase. They may think it has something to do with what they consider "birth defects" since "assigned" sounds like something arbitrary, forceful, and atypical. But we can tweak the sentence. So how about: According to Shrier, social media plays a driving role in causing girls to identify as transgender, [based on/which she bases on]... Crossroads ^-talk- 19:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

  I am using the acronym AFAB on this talk page for brevity, but we can write "assigned female at birth" and wikilink it in the article for maximum understandability. But we should not say they are "girls" for the reasons I mention above. AFAB is not jargon, it is an accurate, adequately sourced, and MOS:GENDERID-compatible descriptor of the people Shrier is writing about, whereas "girls" is only an accurate descriptor of how she views them. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

  As I point out below, the problem with this is that the framing, causing girls to identify as transgender, is already non-neutral, since it accepts Shrier's labeling off the persons concerned as "girls"; this reflects Shrier's point of view but is a key contested question in the debate she is intervening in. Newimpartial (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

  I realize the exact language to use is a matter of subjective editorial discretion, but I feel like if we wikilink AFAB to Sex assignment#AFAB and potentially also add a parenthetical explanation, it's plenty clear and consistent with the level of the article. In the article we refer to gender dysphoria, gender-affirming medical care, breast binding, detransition, all with just a wikilink. I don't think sex assignment is too complex or jargony for the reader. Srey Sros^talk 20:26, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

  I should have been clearer, but I also meant to spell out "assigned female at birth" with a wikilink. Brevity is not an excuse for factual inaccuracy or POV. — Bilorv (talk) 21:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

  "She describes what she sees as..." is an attributed opinion, not wikivoice. In that chapter, Shrier argues that various social problems (unrealistic beauty standards on social media, unwanted sexual attention, rigid gender stereotyping, etc.) are specifically or disproportionately affecting girls. (Bilorv is probably right that when Shrier says "girls" she means "AFAB" [or perhaps "children socially perceived as girls"], but I think it might be WP:OR to say so). Cheers, gnu57 19:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

  It's not OR if she's clearly describing people who were assigned female at birth and are now identifying differently, and I can't imagine she could fill a full book without stating the central claim clearly—does anyone actually have access to this book? — Bilorv (talk) 21:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

  Sorry, what I mean is that, in that particular chapter, Shrier talks about social problems affecting a general category of people she calls "teenage girls"; in this instance her comments aren't limited to TGNC youth. gnu57 21:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

  "AFAB" is hardly a neutral term, since it presumes an ideology that regards one's biological sex as "assigned" (by a Sorting Hat?) rather than observed. *Dan T.* (talk) 00:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  Sex assignment is the language used, nearly universally, in the field of transgender health. What term would be more neutral, in your view, while still conveying the same information? Srey Sros^talk 01:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  Birth sex? Natal sex? Biological sex? It used to be that just plain "sex" had this meaning, but that's ambiguous now; if people would give consistent definitions to "sex" and "gender" maybe they could be used to make that distinction, but it's too muddied now. *Dan T.* (talk) 22:58, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  Those aren't neutral either, as it suggests that people are "biologically" one sex or another at birth (rather than assumed to be based on genitalia/etc.). GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

  It seems to no longer be possible to have a neutral discussion in this area, since pretty much all the terminology is disputed ground and/or has ideological assumptions baked into it. *Dan T.* (talk) 04:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

  Perhaps that's true, but since sex assignment is the widely-used term among transgender health providers, that would be my pick. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)In terms of policy, almost all the sources in this article are bullshit under WP:MEDRS. The book reviews particularly need to be taken as highly suspect, save for the ONE done by an actual expert in the topic of transgender mental health (Jack Turban) - and that one rightly points out that what's in the book is entirely against the medical consensus in the field. The rest of the "glowing" reviews parrot Shrier's claims credulously, but WP:MEDRS indicates they're noviable since those book reviewers are not medical experts in any way. The book's medical conclusions, assertions of "fact", portrayals of supposed case studies with woefully inadequate designs (not to mention unethical ones like only interviewing anti-LGBT parents) are all suspect under WP:MEDRS as well, especially since Shrier herself is an anti-LGBT WP:FRINGE idealogue with no background in psychiatric medicine, let alone the topic area of transgender mental health and transitioning, and the book was published by a conservative publishing mill with virtually nonexistent fact-checking standards. IHateAccounts (talk) 19:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - just so that we are clear, two passages in this article's current version are incompatible with NPOV and cannot be stated in wikivoice:
• Shrier accuses social media of playing a driving role in girls' decisions to identify as transgender - we can't say this in Wikivoice, because labeling these young people as girls is already taking Schrier's side in the controversy;
• Turner remarked that the girls Shrier described in the book showed no discomfort in their female bodies until puberty - this paraphrase apparently applies the label girls to these young people through time, regardless of any dysphoria they may have experienced and on into their declared trans identities. It also quite unnecessarily inserts the girls Shreier described in Wikivoice, again taking Shrier's side in the controversy of whether or not those young people who no longer identify as girls are somehow nevertheless to be identified as such against their expressed decision.
• Also, the article relies heavily on quotation and manages to insert girls repeatedly in quotes, uncritically presented, that again assume agreement with Shrier's POV - that it is appropriate to group all AFAB youth as "girls" and to deny recognition of trans identities for those who identify as such. It is not the job of WP to simply reproduce the views of FRINGE commentators on these topics in the authors' own terms, particularly when they contradict the community values (expressed in MOS:GENDERID) about how trans people should be referred to in the encyclopaedia. Newimpartial (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

  Firmly agree with the above. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

  A few minutes later, and with one cut and one change, the misgendering now all takes the form of quotations, AFAICT. While I suppose this is an improvement, the use of quotations is also very clearly UNDUE, particularly since the article as a whole simply reproduces Shrier's POV (and language) through generous quotations of her and her supporters, presented largely without context. The final quotation from Shrier seems especially UNDUE, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 20:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

  I fully agree with Newimpartial here. The article is still a mess in need of cleanup since it was started by someone trying to WP:PROMO the writer, and the WP:MEDRS and misgendering problems are highly troubling. IHateAccounts (talk) 20:08, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, I find it questionable to have a reception subsection labelled "Response". Cheers, gnu57 20:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

  The "Response" subsection looks particularly dubious on WP:UNDUE grounds, and the quotations in the rest of the "Reception" section are all calling out for summarizing and paraphrasing. Seldom is the prose in a book review so deathless as to warrant exact duplication, and the ones here are outright sensationalist. XOR'easter (talk) 21:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Reception section

Other editors have voiced concerns above about the sourcing and quotations in the reception section, and particularly the response subsection. Let's discuss that here. To me at least, this section of the article seems to describe her arguments uncritically without putting them in the proper context. When dealing with a fringe theory like this, we need to be careful not to create a false balance between the minority of supporters and the overall consensus, in this case in the field of transgender healthcare (see WP:FRINGE, WP:INTEXT, WP:FALSEBALANCE). Particularly because this article falls under WP:MEDRS, I feel like including all the book reviews at the length that we do is improper for this article. I'd love to hear others' thoughts on the matter. Srey Sros^talk 01:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

All but one of the reviews fails WP:MEDRS, since the writers are not experts in mental health (let alone the specialty of mental health and transgender individuals). That's a major concern to start with since the contents of the book are clearly situated as medical advice, and many of the reviews cross the line into repeating the book's claims as if they were legitimate medical advice as well.

Beyond that, I agree that the WP:FALSEBALANCE problem is a major concern as well. It's a WP:FRINGE view, and I have yet to see anyone propose a WP:RS indicating any support by any reputable medical organization.IHateAccounts (talk) 01:52, 17 January 2021 (UTC) - strike through because sockpuppet account

It would be very biased to only quote a negative review while ignoring the positive reviews from such reputable publications as The Times (of London) and the Economist. *Dan T.* (talk) 03:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS is pretty clear. Especially problematic is the one from the Economist, which isn't bylined and gives NO idea of the background of the author. IHateAccounts (talk) 03:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

IIRC, the Economist almost always omits bylines, "Because it allows many writers to speak with a collective voice" [1]. But for our purposes, that just means they're generally unsuitable when WP:MEDRS is required. Unsigned is unsigned. XOR'easter (talk) 03:46, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

It does not appear the economist sources is being used to make a specifical medical claim. This is also a book and the reception of the book needs to be accurately conveyed. Omitting one of the most prominent sources to review the book, the economist, would not be an accurate portrayal of the reception to the book. -Pengortm (talk) 04:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Calling it "first book-length study of a fascinating phenomenon" credulously assumes that Shrier's medical claims (e.g. that the WP:FRINGE idea of ROGD is somehow legitimate) in the book are valid. That's a violation of WP:MEDRS for our sourcing purposes. IHateAccounts (talk) 04:10, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I tend to agree. It's also a bit vague (what is "book-length"?), and the other quote about ROGD having "been widely ignored" misrepresents the extent of commentary upon the idea. XOR'easter (talk) 04:17, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Whether the Economist is right or wrong about those claims--they are not medical claims. saying, "first book-length study of a fascinating phenomenon" is not saying the book is valid. Not sure how you made that leap? -Pengortm (talk) 04:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Asserting that a "phenomenon" is "fascinating" is calling it a valid identification of a real phenomenon. In this case, that's a medical claim. XOR'easter (talk) 04:45, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't really agree that reviews have to follow MEDRS for general comments. We can avoid quoting parts that are about medical claims. IMO descriptions of a book's following traits (or their opposites) are fine to quote: "interesting", "well-written", "informative", "a topic which should have more awareness" etc. This is not me saying that the current quotes necessarily fall into that category, or that they follow due weight. — Bilorv (talk) 10:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

There are doubtless some statements of that sort (e.g., if a reviewer comments The author is a Minnesotan, born and bred or something like that). I'd hazard a guess, though, that in general, the more a comment falls toward that end of the spectrum, the less weighty it will be. XOR'easter (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

An actual review with a real byline.

• "Staggeringly few of the scholars and medical professionals with which Shrier textually converses have studied trans people firsthand: they’ve only inventoried the grievances and impressions of cisgender parents. Shrier’s most vulnerable subjects — adolescents — are outed through the author’s emotionally predatory interviews with concerned, naïve, or bluntly transphobic parents, and it is unclear whether any of her subjects were given permission to opt out of partaking in Shrier’s opus."

• "What follows this moment of duplicitous soapbox oration is the full-fledged gender panic of the book itself, so ugly and corporeally invasive of trans men and even cis women."

• "Before we can even begin to experience angst at the book’s heartless dissection of delicate trans experiences, the damage has already been done. Shrier’s propaganda, couched in the language of independence and freedom, has reached its intended audience. It is unlikely that any reader, be they devoted MAGA hatter or benign suburban housewife, will pause to probe Irreversible Damage’s sources. If they did, they might realize that they originate, not from the peer-reviewed realms of medicine, science, and law, but from the partisan op-ed sections of Fox News and The Washington Post."

• "In this taunting caveat, Shrier does several insidious things apart from betraying her love of the United States Constitution: she prioritizes the convictions of cisgender parents over queer and trans teens, many of whom have since entered legal adulthood; she denies these same young adults acknowledgment of their likeness on the page, or their ability to polish or rebuff that representation; all the while, she protects herself and Regnery Publishing from the legal retribiton of her victims — assuming they could afford it — by not disclosing identifying information. Collectively, these rhetorical tactics define the contemporary transphobia that Shrier continually writes off as an accusation that the dysphoric child weaponizes against their parents when they “disagree[] with the child about the child’s self-assessment of being transgender,” tell “their child that hormones or surgeries were unlikely to help,” and recommend “that the child work on other underlying mental health issues.” In short, to Shrier, the parent who denies their gender variant child autonomy — and heaven forbid, love — is the primary victim."

https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/the-constitutional-conflationists-on-abigail-shriers-irreversible-damage-and-the-dangerous-absurdity-of-anti-trans-trolls/ IHateAccounts (talk) 15:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

The review is sufficiently long that this might constitute fair use but I would avoid quoting such passages at length in future—WP:COPYVIO still applies to talk pages. — Bilorv (talk) 17:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Interview with author

Abigail Shrier was interviewed on the Triggernometry podcast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uqht5dcJAI&feature=youtu.be *Dan T.* (talk) 01:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

And? The podcast isn't a WP:RS. IHateAccounts (talk) 02:21, 25 January 2021 (UTC) - strike through because sockpuppet account

It features the author in person, and isn't the author a reliable source on her own work? *Dan T.* (talk) 03:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Not necessarily; Wikipedia:Mandy Rice-Davies Applies is to be considered, especially when it's something like a blog or podcast. IHateAccounts (talk) 05:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@Dtobias: A lot of this feels like it would fall under WP:MANDY Bravetheif (talk) 15:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

This is reliable for statements attributed to Shrier but not automatically due weight. We can consider particular quotes or topics Shrier addresses individually if you can name any sections (timestamps please!) which are useful. For instance, if Shrier said "I started writing in the book in May 2018" or said "I was inspired by this event in my own life" then this is likely good info for "Background and publication history". — Bilorv (talk) 16:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Non-redundant wording

Please consider this part of the main text: "In the book Shrier expresses support for the unproven[1] and contentious[2][3] hypothesis of rapid onset gender dysphoria.[4][5][6][7]:ch 2 She advocates for withholding gender-affirming medical care from transgender youth, a fringe[8]".

I believe the content shouldn't have any redundant wording such as "the unproven and contentious hypothesis". This makes the article biased as for any hypothesis is something that it's unproven and it's a proposed explanation of something with little evidence as a starting point for further investigation. Therefore, there's no need for unproven and contentious in the wording. The same has to be said for content such as "a fringe" since a hypothesis isn't part of the mainstream as it's something that's yet to be proved or disproved.

Please consider changing the wording so as to make it clearer. "Hypothese sind in form einer logischen Aussage formulierte Annahme, deren Gültigkeit nicht bewiesen." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2800:484:6581:8919:5D6E:81AA:A3F0:B9C7 (talk) 01:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I support changing "hypothesis" to "theory". I believe that's what I wrote originally anyway. Bravetheif (talk) 03:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I guess there are two separate issues here: our description of Littman's "ROGD" theory and our description of the practice of withholding gender-affirming care from trans youth. You take issue with the words "unproven" and "contentious" being used to describe Littman's theory. I don't see how "contentious" is redundant. Hypotheses are not inherently contentious. And although hypotheses are inherently unproven, I don't see a problem with including the word in the description alongside "hypothesis". If your argument is that readers will already know that it is unproven and thus that the wording is redundant, then I don't see how it could also be introducing a POV slant. However, this whole point is irrelevant if we change the wording to "theory", as then "unproven" becomes an important classifier. Regarding the "fringe" label attached to the practice of withholding medical care from trans kids, that characterization is supported by the reliable sources we have for the article. "Fringe" is not describing Littman's hypothesis, although I imagine it could. It is describing a medical practice. Srey Sros^talk 03:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I've reverted the change from "hypothesis" to "theory" on the grounds that it's not a theory in the way most scientists would expect the term to be used. There isn't consensus here that the issue is that "hypothesis" should be "theory" rather than that "unproven" and/or "contentious" are redundant and should be removed. My edit summary was: by the mainstream scientific meaning of the word, a hypothesis proposed in a later-retracted study or even a few studies is not as developed as a "theory". As I'm not a professional and I'm just basing this on my own schooling, I'm open to correction. With regards to my opinion on "unproven", I can see that this could reasonably be omitted as a clear connotation of "hypothesis", though we are aiming to reach a layperson audience; "contentious" is not so clearly inherent in the term "hypothesis" so I'd expect that one to be kept. — Bilorv (talk) 16:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)