Talk:Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine

description of 2023 conference

I think the amount added about this content (which just seems to be Hannah Barnes self describing a day out) seems undue. At the moment it seems to need to be summarised and more sources than just Hannah Barnes. LunaHasArrived (talk) 13:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree, this is completely WP:UNDUE and fails WP:INDEPENDENT (in addition to WP:NOR). If due, it should be shortened, summarized, and supplemented with better WP:RS. Hannah Barnes was invited to speak at a SEGM conference, spoke there, and wrote about how wonderful she thinks SEGM is - we don't need a huge paragraph about her trip.

@Colaheed777, please self-revert. Analyzing the the text you added[1],

At the 2023 conference in New York organized by the SEGM, British journalist Hannah Barnes presented findings from her investigation into the Gender Identity Development Service in the UK, previously known as the largest youth gender clinic, globally. - she wrote she went there, are there any independent RS that find this due?

The event emphasized the organization's advocacy for research-supported approaches in the treatment of gender-questioning youth. - the article doesn't say this

During the conference, Riittakerttu Kaltiala shared insights from Finland, highlighting a preference for psychotherapeutic interventions over medical transitions in young people, - only part that seems possibly due, though the text needs work.

aligning with SEGM's cautious stance towards medical interventions. - This bit is WP:OR, the source doesn't say this

Per the journalist's observation, the conference highlighted the divisive nature of this issue in the United States, where professionals critical of immediate medical interventions, such as the use of puberty blockers, have faced accusations of transphobia. - This is mostly editorializing WP:OR, Barnes says In sharp contrast is the approach of the US. There, the issue is even more contentious – accusations of being ‘transphobic’ thrown around more frequently. Even clinicians who have devoted their professional lives to working in youth gender clinics and recommended patients for medical treatments can be ostracised for suggesting that puberty blockers and hormones won’t help every one of these young people. The phrase critical of immediate medical interventions is not the same as suggesting that puberty blockers and hormones won’t help every one of these young people.

This event also underscored the ongoing debate over the best practices for supporting gender-questioning children, underscoring the need for an evidence-based approach to care - this is pure WP:OR and editorializing not actually in the source. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

@Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist I won't be reverting anything as this content is neutral and independent. There are plenty of sources here where other organizations and journalists expressed their opinions here and you didn't hesitate for a second to include them. And by your quote "How SEGM is wonderful", it seems to me you are not without a bias about the company, so instead of requiring me that, I'd initiate a discussion for second opinion on the NPOV Noticeboard, where we'll again discuss this and other used source and make a comparison. Now, the question is do you want to open that discussion on the NPOV Noticeboard, or would you like me to do it? This I can definitely do for you any time. With regard, Colaheed777 (talk) 11:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

From WP:IIS: An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective. Independent sources have editorial independence (advertisers do not dictate content) and no conflicts of interest (there is no potential for personal, financial, or political gain to be made from the existence of the publication). - Barnes is writing about a conference she spoke at (which she was presumably paid for). It is not WP:INDEPENDENT. My objection is not particular to SEGM - there is no situation in which somebody speaks at an event then we let them get a paragraph of wikivoice about how good they think the event is because that fails WP:INDEPENDENT and WP:DUE. Even ignoring all that, if we pretend that Wikipedia is a PR platform where WP:INDEPENDENT and WP:DUE don't apply - the issues with WP:OR in your added text still remain.

There are plenty of sources here where other organizations and journalists expressed their opinions here and you didn't hesitate for a second to include them - are they WP:INDEPENDENT?

If you want to take this to NPOVN, be my guest, but the last two times you did [2][3][4] and the time you kept trying to add a POV tag [5] do suggest that it will end with people agreeing this fails WP:NOR, WP:INDEPENDENT, and WP:DUE. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Alright Colaheed, I'll put my hand up as the second opinion (or third or fourth or however one counts these things). I have reverted the addition. Feel free to take it to a noticeboard, even though it's not really how I'd want to be starting this month. I'll reserve the option to take it to another one myself. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Alpha3031 mentioned a prior consensus in the revert, so here's the courtesy link - I'd forgotten this very source was already discussed. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@LunaHasArrived Okay. So what do you suggest? Colaheed777 (talk) 11:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Unless you have another source, I would revert it all as I think an independent source Is necessary to prove that this event is due on the article. Even with other sources I would say it needs to be heavily summarised and take some of YNFS suggestions on board about removing OR. LunaHasArrived (talk) 12:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, the total lack of WP:INDEPENDENT / secondary coverage makes this pretty undue. Barnes, an invited speaker at the SEGM conference, obviously cannot be considered an independent source on it. --Aquillion (talk) 19:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Edit request: wrong Mount Sinai

The page currently identifies Joshua Safer as an endocrinologist from Mount Sinai and links to the actual mountain in Egypt. Page 3 of the linked reference says that he works at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York.

Current text:
In April 2021, Medscape Medical News asked Joshua Safer{{snd}}an endocrinologist from [[Mount Sinai]] acting as a spokesperson for the Endocrine Society on transgender issues{{snd}}about SEGM, SEGM member Will Malone, and their concerns about treatment for transgender youth, he stated:

Suggested edit:
In April 2021, Medscape Medical News asked Joshua Safer{{snd}}an endocrinologist from [[Mount Sinai Hospital (Manhattan)|Mount Sinai Hospital]] acting as a spokesperson for the Endocrine Society on transgender issues{{snd}}about SEGM, SEGM member Will Malone, and their concerns about treatment for transgender youth, he stated: Raininshadows (talk) 02:39, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done good catch, thanks. Jamedeus (talk) 02:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Caraballo quote

Information covered in The Times (which is a reliable source according to WP:RSP) and The BMJ [6] (peer reviewed and one of the most cited medical journals), shows that Alejandra Caraballo is the subject of a misinformation controversy regarding youth gender medicine. She is a known activist with strong opinions on this topic. With this current information, she is not a neutral and unbiased source. Her quote that was used in the SEGM page illustrates this bias. For this article to remain neutral, I suggest her opinion be removed as the credibility of this quote is questionable. JonJ937 (talk) 11:04, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I’m not sure Caraballo’s claim about the Cass review means her attributed view should be removed about SEGM. We include the perspectives of all sorts of people. Making a misinformed statement (per BMJ) doesn’t mean you’re blacklisted from talking about everything else.

It would make sense to use the BMJ/Times source on the article about the Cass review, if Caraballo’s comments are mentioned. Generally Wikipedia just reflects what is published in the reliable sources, and Caraballo’s source here is published and acceptable. This avoids any editorialization by individual users. Zenomonoz (talk) 11:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Even though the perspectives of all sorts of people could be considered, at the very least, the bias and associated credibility issues needs to be demonstrated. Otherwise it looks like Caraballo is some kind of a third party observer sharing her views. It was very unprofessional of Caraballo to share false information on such a sensitive issue and it is obvious that her opinions should not be taken at face value. Per WP:BIASED, biased sources can be used, but we need to consider their reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. Caraballo is hardly independent from the topic. I think that generally this article has serious neutrality issues. It mostly reflects critical opinions of entities and people associated with activism. While an alternative point of view is not adequately reflected. JonJ937 (talk) 16:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

JonJ937, see WP:BIASED which states Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate, as in "The feminist Betty Friedan wrote that..." The article does this, so it's not much of a problem. Zenomonoz (talk) 04:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

There is actually no explanation in the article of who Caraballo is. It just mentions her name. The article about her states that she is a lawyer and activist, pertinent information. JonJ937 (talk) 10:11, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

1) Those articles do not say she spread misinformation, they said Cass said she did. The Cass review has been extensively criticized by transgender health researchers and the BMJ piece takes shots at nearly every reputable scientific organization for not agreeing with the Cass Review, such as WPATH, the Endocrine Society, and the American Academy of Pediatrics.

2) WP:NPOV says All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. - The piece by Caraballo is a peer reviewed piece of academic literature, NPOV means we include it, not that we exclude it because the author is "biased".

3) "Caraballo is hardly independent from the topic" is a little silly, as the NYT called her an expert on trans issues and the she's well known for her academic work on anti-LGBT rhetoric. We try and turn towards academic experts, not claim they must be biased in their field of expertise. Please see WP:INDEPENDENT for more details. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

According to the sources, Caraballo stated that the Cass review "disregarded nearly all studies". This is not the truth and she wrote that before the review was published, i.e. without even reading it. This is obviously not a professional and unbiased statement. You quoted WP:NPOV. Which says: All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

I see nothing but critical opinions of activists and WPATH members in this article. Independent third party sources do not use terms such as anti-trans. For example, BMJ refers to SEGM as "a group of researchers and clinicians that has pushed for systematic reviews and an evidence-based approach". This is a much more neutral description. By checking the credentials of the critics, almost all of them are either WPATH members, or are somehow affiliated with this organization. For example, AJ Eckert, referenced in the lead, is a WPATH member: https://www.wpath.org/member/4277. At least 4 out of 7 Yale researchers are also affiliated with this organization and they do not represent that institution, according to the disclaimer. How are any of these people neutral and unbiased?

I am following the discussion on NPOV board about WPATH. You objected to the inclusion of critical reports from NYT, Economist and other reliable sources in the article about WPATH. Your argument was that information from these sources were undue or inordinate. How is it that information from those highly respected sources is excessive for WPATH, but marginal sources quoted in this article are all acceptable? JonJ937 (talk) 10:17, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

That BMJ article you quote is a feature, written by a "freelance journalist", not an expert on transgender healthcare. And yes, of course, experts on transgender healthcare often are members of or affiliated with the World Professional Association for Transgender Health... -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 10:27, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

As mentioned above, BMJ is a peer reviewed scholarly journal and the article was posted under “BMJ Investigation”. Whether the author is a freelance journalist or not, BMJ takes responsibility for this content and the article in question was peer reviewed. One does not have to be an expert on transgender healthcare to write about the controversies surrounding this topic. It is non-medical information, same as the Wikipedia article about SEGM. Not every transgender healthcare specialist is a WPATH member. This organisation has been in hot water recently for manipulating scholarly evidence and amending its guidelines for political purposes. All reported in major US and international media sources. WPATH is known for its negative attitude towards SEGM due to the latter’s critical stance on certain WPATH dealings. We have a clear conflict of interest here. Demonstrated when WPATH’s members opinions are presented as statements of facts, or when the article only contains criticism from WPATH and people and entities associated with activism, with no inclusion of any other alternative views. JonJ937 (talk) 12:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

"WPATH’s members opinions are presented as statements of facts": is this happening in the article? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes in the lede:

has falsely claimed that conversion therapy techniques are only practiced on the basis of sexual orientation rather than gender identity.

This is unattributed, presented as fact, in wikivoice, and the source is AJ Eckert, member of WPATH and on the USPATH board of directors. Void if removed (talk) 13:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

In the body, this would be better described starting with the fact that SEGM describes conversion therapy as only including practices targeted at bisexual, gay, and lesbian people, and following that fact up with Eckert's analysis that this is a false claim. I don't think mention is due for the lead in wikivoice or not.

I'm more concerned about the "opinion presented as fact" angle here. Membership of WPATH is not qualifying or disqualifying for reliability or weight here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we need to say Eckert said it's false since it's pretty clearly WP:FRINGE so is fine to state as false in wikivoice. I'd be fine removing it from the lead in place of something more to the point like SEGM has lobbied to remove protections for transgender people in conversion therapy bans. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

this would be better described starting with the fact that SEGM describes conversion therapy as only including practices targeted at bisexual, gay, and lesbian people

Not sure that's feasible, personally. The only source for what SEGM were saying is primary (a submission to Canadian Bill C-6), and that's not quite what was being said, so it gets into OR trying to add it in to "counterbalance" this. All there really is that's usable is Eckert's opinion on that, and even if I don't personally think its totally accurate, it is due because it is on WP:SBM. That's just the way the sources are, and IMO complaining about "WPATH's members opinion" is wandering into WP:NOTFORUM territory.

However, one article cited by this page actually has pretty evenly balanced coverage, and I think it is being underutilised. Eg. I think Carabello's position is WP:DUE and the allegation of "misinformation" in one unrelated case isn't anywhere enough to discount that, but arguably Gordon Guyatt and Erica Anderson are much more significant figures, and Guyatt's ambivalence and Anderson's praise (as a former WPATH board member) would make fine additions.

The fact that the BMJ treats them pretty neutrally as a group of clinicians and researchers, while the SPLC goes all the way to calling them a hate group makes it very hard to find NPOV. There's a few too many self-published sources here making allegations against named individuals, and I have to wonder if this is WP:BLPGROUP territory? Void if removed (talk) 14:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Firefangledfeathers. The imbalance is quite obvious. An example of WPATH’s members' opinions being presented as statements of facts can be found in the very first lines of the introduction in the article. Void if removed mentioned, the line "falsely claimed that conversion therapy techniques are only practiced on the basis of sexual orientation rather than gender identity" is supported by a single reference to AJ Eckert, a WPATH member, in a wikivoice with no attribution. Such publications should not be used for statements of facts, as was written in the introduction and if cited elsewhere in the article, the affiliation of this author with WPATH needs to be explicitly stated. Generally, the introduction is not written in line with NPOV guidelines. It does not present SEGM in a neutral manner and contains the opinions of biased sources. Such as a group of Yale scholars most of whom are also WPATH members. Joshua Safer, another WPATH member and Southern Poverty Law Center, which according to its RSP entry is a reliable but biased source. It is essentially a collection of biased sources knocking SEGM. I see the point made above that just being a WPATH member is not enough grounds for disqualifying a source. However, a conflict of interest here is quite obvious. In my opinion, all WPATH members view points, which are far from being balanced, belong to the body of the article with proper attribution. I suggest we completely rewrite the intro based on what third party sources say. For example, we can refer to BMJ and Undark (Void if removed, thanks for bringing it up, Undark is indeed a very good and balanced source, presenting all points of view on the subject) which are not affiliated with either party. JonJ937 (talk) 13:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

No, Undark is definitely a lower-quality source (it's a magazine by non-experts!) This is something that comes up a lot in academic contexts - WPATH is a high-quality academic source; claiming that it's "biased" because it says something that someone else disagrees with amounts to WP:FALSEBALANCE. We should reflect what WPATH says unless other sources of comparable weight disagree. Otherwise we'd run into "teach the controversy" issues when talking about evolution, climate change, and similar topics; anyone who disagrees with the academic consensus would argue that every source that asserts it is biased and must be "balanced against" using lower-quality sources. That's not how balance works - we focus on WP:BESTSOURCES, and WPATH is one of the best sources available for this topic. --Aquillion (talk) 15:19, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Undark is an MIT sponsored, award winning publication, run by highly professional journalists. Considering WPATH's leadership structure and membership, some of whom are not health professionals, but lawyers and activists, it is not a strictly professional group. WPATH does not represent the academic consensus and has recently been distinctly criticized for manipulating scholarly evidence (they commissioned professional reviews from John Hopkins University, but refused to publish them when those reviews did not deliver the results they wanted). They have also been scrutinized for lowering treatment ages for minors under pressure from a health official. All this information has been covered by major news outlets. Clearly, WPATH has a conflict of interest here. Their opinions about their opponents cannot be taken at face value. WPATH opinions must be properly attributed, and not presented as statements of facts. SEGM is not a scholarly topic, it is an organization, so news reports are acceptable here. JonJ937 (talk) 11:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Short Description

I changed short description from "Organization opposing transgender rights" to just "Organization", because it was not in line with WP:NPOV JonJ937 (talk) 14:07, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

The description meets NPOV because it reflects multiple RS statements about SEGM. NPOV doesn’t mean that nothing negative can be said about a subject.OsFish (talk) 14:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Which RS statements in particular? The short description must reflect general consensus among the reliable sources on what the organization is. I don't see BMJ or Undark referring to SEGM as "Organization opposing transgender rights". JonJ937 (talk) 09:18, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Undark isn't really one of the WP:BESTSOURCES here given its low quality and expertise relative to the ones already in the article. The best available sources definitely support "Organization opposing transgender rights; if you look at the article body, numerous high-quality academic sources published by authors, and in venues, with relevant expertise in the topic describe it that way. There's no reason we would resort to using a random magazine with no expertise in a situation like that. --Aquillion (talk) 15:20, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

The question was which support the current short description. I think that's a fair question. You say numerous high-quality academic sources - there's Carabello, who says anti-transgender. I have had a quick skim for others, but its time consuming - if there are numerous academic sources supporting "Organization opposing transgender rights" cited in the article, can you point them out?

Undark isn't at all a poor quality source, it is certainly superior to anything self-published, and its coverage of the subject of this article seems to be far more in-depth and cross-spectrum than any other, by far. Not sure what relative expertise you're stacking it up against when the author interviewed those people whose description of SEGM are presently cited (eg. Carabello, McNamara), and repeated those positions at length. Meanwhile, the BMJ is excellent. Medscape is already cited by this page and that also doesn't use such language. Void if removed (talk) 16:37, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

This, from the article, leaps out at me as an obviously higher-quality source, as a report written by multiple experts in the field and published by an academic institution with a strong reputation. Undark simply has no such relevant expertise and no such reputation - it's a random magazine. And the problem with using an editor's personal belief that it's in-depth and cross-spectrum as an argument for citing it is that (and I know this isn't your intent, but it's why arguments like that carry no weight when discussion controversial topics like this one) that's isomorphic to saying that you agree with their conclusions; editors will naturally believe that sources that they agree with are the most balanced and in-depth ones. If you want to argue for giving them significant weight, you have to demonstrate their medical credentials or, failing that, strong WP:USEBYOTHERS. --Aquillion (talk) 02:14, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Right, the problem is that that report is I think a SPS? and explicitly carries the disclaimer that it is the opinions of the authors and not the institution. It's basically the unverified opinion of subject matter experts, while undark has an editorial board and awards for science journalism to its name. Just because something has a bunch of citations in footnotes, doesn't make it a weightier source. It's also - as with the Carabello piece - explicitly the opinion of individuals engaged in opposing sides in legal conflict, so not independent. It also doesn't explicitly support the short description AFAICT, describing SEGM as ideological, or just a website, or opposed to the affirmative model.

None are close to the BMJ in terms of quality, which is independent, peer reviewed, and a top academic journal.

Weighing this up neutrally is hard, when the best sources look like this. Having a short description that cannot be directly attributed to any of these four sources doesn't seem right though.

Maybe something like "controversial medical group" or something would square the circle. Void if removed (talk) 07:40, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes. That's how academia works. Universities don't officially endorse one viewpoint or the other as The Neutral Truth. They employ researchers who do research, and Wikipedia summarizes that research, from the perspective of the most commonly accepted (among experts) viewpoint. And yes, I dare say actual subject matter experts are more reliable than a magazine that "has an editorial board and awards for science journalism to its name". Same thing with the BMJ source. It's a journalistic article, not a peer-reviewed scientific contribution. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 09:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I think medical group is giving them, far far too much credit.

Medscape (2021), says not for profit organisation.

The undark peice gives no summary.

The Yale peice explicitly points out that they are not a scientific organisation.

The bmj, just says group of researchers and physicians.

wyofile (Currently used in article), explicitly states that it is not recognised by the international medical community.

Splc, designate them as a hate group

In Science based medicine (used in article) [7] The author Dr eckert says that in their opinion segm is a transphobic organisation

If someone could have a look at the academic articles cited in article that could be a good place to find more sources so we can accurately assess what common use is.

At the moment medical or scientific seems just as (if not a more) contentious term as anti-trans for this organisation. LunaHasArrived (talk) 09:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

The SPLC is also self published, and needs attribution (as well as non-independent). I've checked the Eckert article, and there's no useful citation for that opinion.

How about "controversial nonprofit organisation"? Void if removed (talk) 11:43, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

If the academic articles give no more insight then we'll go with the annoyingly vague suggestion.

I'm intrigued by the idea of independence of Carabello and the Yale report (the only academic literature I can access). From what I see they are writing reports, if the individuals are being used as expert witnesses in these trials it may be more dubious but the act of writing these reports doesn't make them any less independent than otherwise. Do you have evidence outside the sources they produced that they are not independent (note I do not mean unbiased, just independent)? LunaHasArrived (talk) 12:41, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Also which case is splc working on that involves segm? LunaHasArrived (talk) 12:59, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Undark is an MIT sponsored, award winning publication, run by professional reporters with a background in NYT and other prestigious news outlets, it is the only news report dedicated specifically to this organization. It is well balanced and presents all existing views on the subject. [8] According to Undark: "SEGM serves as a hub through which clinicians and researchers collaborate and it has become an influential voice in the polarized global debate over pediatric gender care". The Yale researchers mentioned in the article and Eckert are WPATH members, these people have a clear conflict of interest. Anything that comes from WPATH must be taken with skepticism, or at the very least, thoroughly contemplated. SPLC is a biased source, per RSP entry. We must give more relevance to unbiased third party sources, which in this context are BMJ (which is peer reviewed article, it says that on the BMJ page) and Undark. Such sources do not say that SEGM is anti-trans. The short description must reflect the general consensus among third party sources and it is clear that there is no consensus to call SEGM anti-trans, considering that independent sources do not use such term to describe SEGM. JonJ937 (talk) 11:51, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Recommendation for Revising the Article's Structure and Addressing Bias on Conversion Therapy

Subjective opinions should be removed from the main body of the article and moved to the 'Criticism' section. I also urge those who can edit the article to consider the arguments presented in the Cass Report and remove the moral panic surrounding 'conversion therapy.' This is a harmful stance that has a real impact on medical professionals who are searching for ways to address the serious condition of gender dysphoria.

Cass Report: https://cass.independent-review.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/CassReview_Final.pdf (page 202, 17.20) Отец Никифор (talk) 01:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC) — Отец Никифор (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

You will need to be a lot more specific on which edits you would like to see. The Cass reference isn't about SEGM. This page is about SEGM.OsFish (talk) 09:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

The group routinely cites the unproven concept of rapid-onset gender dysphoria and has falsely claimed that conversion therapy techniques are only practiced on the basis of sexual orientation rather than gender identity. SEGM is often cited in anti-transgender legislation and court cases, sometimes filing court briefs.

This statement references SEGM's brief to the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs (available here: https://sencanada.ca/content/sen/committee/432/LCJC/Briefs/2021-05-07_LCJC_C-6_Brief_SEGM_e.pdf), where they express concern that psychological support for patients with gender dysphoria might be categorized as 'conversion therapy'

There is a very real risk that all forms of supportive and explorative psychotherapies for young patients who present with gender dysphoria will be classified as “conversion”.

They caution about the risk of labeling supportive and exploratory psychotherapy for young patients with gender dysphoria as "conversion therapy". A similar concern is also highlighted in the Cass Report:

17.20 The reluctance of clinicians to engage in the clinical care of gender-questioning children and young people was recognised earlier in this report. Clinicians cite this stems from the weak evidence base, lack of consistent professional guidance and support, and the long-term implications of making the wrong judgement about treatment options. In addition, concerns were expressed about potential accusations of conversion practice when following an approach that would be considered normal clinical practice when working with other groups of children and young people.

Given these points, I believe SEGM’s perspective is quite valid and may not deserve such a biased description. A more balanced representation would better serve readers by reflecting the complexity of this issue. Отец Никифор (talk) 14:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC) — Отец Никифор (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

These are indeed valid concerns. I agree that all critical opinions, in particular by WPATH members, activists and advocacy groups, should be moved to the criticism section. The affiliation of each source should also be indicated. In addition the opinion of Eckert needs to be balanced by the opinion of SEGM, so both sides of the dispute are presented. JonJ937 (talk) 10:05, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Giving "equal validity" can create a false balance. Eckert's "opinion" here appears to be a statement of fact about SEGM's position that,

Using the term “conversion therapy” in the context of gender dysphoria is not only misleading but also inaccurate. “Conversion therapy” refers to an ideological and, historically, religiously-motivated effort to “convert” lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals to become heterosexual. [...] To suggest that this practice is being applied to gender-questioning youth is erroneous and will only serve to further inflame the already highly politicized field of transgender medicine.

The mainstream medical consensus is that GICE certainly do exist, and are "conversion therapy". –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 12:41, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

The article does not currently have a section called "Criticism"; we generally try to avoid sections and articles focusing on criticisms or controversies. Quarantining notable controversies (rather than integrating them according to due weight tends to harm rather than improve an article's neutrality. Given the hate group designation and the breadth of critical sources, I think it's important that readers come away from the lead without misconceptions about this group, particularly its misleading name, and its standing within the medical community. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 12:49, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

It is important to view this statement in context to understand its meaning:

Using the term “conversion therapy” in the context of gender dysphoria is not only misleading but also inaccurate. “Conversion therapy” refers to an ideological and, historically, religiouslymotivated effort to “convert” lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals to become heterosexual. Conversion therapy has not been practiced or supported in any domain of Canada’s health system for at least 30 years in relation to LGB individuals. To suggest that this practice is being applied to gender-questioning youth is erroneous and will only serve to further inflame the already highly politicized field of transgender medicine.

SEGM does not support harmful practices towards individuals with gender dysphoria. The skepticism surrounding medical and surgical interventions is grounded in research.

In my opinion, psychological support aimed at self-acceptance should not be equated with ‘conversion therapy,’ as remission of gender dysphoria is a well-documented phenomenon. This makes it a valid area of study.

SEGM highlights critical research, and this is an essential contribution to the development of science.

I believe that the appeal to ‘false balance’ is not applicable here, as SEGM’s position is backed by research, and based on the provided sources, I don’t see grounds for such negative framing.

Once again, I would like to point out the concerns raised by medical professionals about the misuse of the term ‘conversion therapy’ to politicize legitimate approaches to treating gender dysphoria. I believe this article exemplifies such an undesirable approach, which hinders healthy and constructive dialogue among experts. Отец Никифор (talk) 14:26, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

based on the provided sources

You provided two sources. One is primary and one is the Cass Review final report, which doesn't support anything in your reply. Please provide WP:MEDRS sources to support your medical claims if you want them to have any impact on the article. Flounder fillet (talk) 20:17, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Based on the provided sources

Here, I am referring to the sources cited in the article, not my own sources. I believe that the available references do not sufficiently support such negative framing.

Additionally, I am unsure which specific claims you want me to substantiate. My primary point is that the article seems to violate WP:NPOV:

• Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that genocide is an evil action but may state that genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil.

I am not opposed to including these opinions in the article, but they should be represented in line with WP:NPOV as described here:

• Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. For example, to state that According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field.

Отец Никифор (talk) 21:26, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

The issue is that high-quality (that is, academic and medical) sourcing on RoGD is quite one-sided; you can see the Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy article for many more, but on this one, see this. It would be inappropriate and potentially WP:PROFRINGE to present this as a mere difference of opinion between equal and opposite sides; this is more of a situation where avoid stating facts as opinions comes into play - academic support for RoGD outside of Littman herself is almost nonexistent, while opposition is overwhelming to the point where we have to present it as (at the very least) unproven. Likewise, while we indicate the relative prominence of opposing views, this is subject to WP:ACADEMICBIAS in the sense that we defer to higher-quality sources; there may be many tabloids and magazines with no expertise that treat RoGD with credulity, but that's not relevant when the academic and medical consensus is so clear-cut. --Aquillion (talk) 02:24, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

An important principle we use in writing Wikipedia is to not rely on primary sources (and thereby, our own analysis thereof), but to summarize secondary sources; that is, sources that interpret the primary sources. Can you cite secondary sources that support your interpretation of their statements? -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 10:28, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I believe SEGM’s perspective is quite valid yeah ok no. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 10:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

The opinion of Eckert must be correctly attributed, per Wikipedia NPOV rules. JonJ937 (talk) 11:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

The opinion of who? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 12:01, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, this is not just the opinion of one person, but multiple organizations, as mentioned multiple times on this talk page. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 12:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Yale report misquoted

From the lead section of this article: Researchers at the Yale School of Medicine issued a report which described SEGM as "a small group of anti-trans activists". The quoted text is not however, from the Yale report, but from the Vice article summarizing the report. I think this is confusing, as the surrounding sentence to me implies that the quote is from the report, and not Vice's analysis. How should this be clarified? I suggest removing the quotation marks. One could argue that that would be an unattributed quotation of Vice. However, it is five words, (arguably WP:LIMITED) and I think much better than misquoting the Yale report. Other solutions are of course more than welcome. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 11:12, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

If it is what this group said, it should be in quotation marks. JonJ937 (talk) 12:01, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Please clarify. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 12:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

If that's not in the Yale report it shouldn't be quoted. I agree it falls under limited. Your solution seems the simplest. LunaHasArrived (talk) 13:02, 13 October 2024 (UTC)