Talk:Standards of Care for the Health of Transgender and Gender Diverse People

Reversion of attribution edit

This edit by Raladic, yet again removed information about Dr Levine's interference with WPATH decisions, despite that information being supported by multiple reliable sources, including The Economist, The NYT and The Hill. The link to The Economist article is gone too, despite the consensus at WP:RSN that it is a reliable source and not an opinion piece. The entire controversy revolves around the involvement of this particular official in influencing WPATH's decisions, who is mentioned by name by all these reliable sources. The sources discuss not anonymous transgender advocates, but one particular official exerting pressure to have SOC worded a certain way. I would like to ask for an explanation why exactly the information about Dr Levine is being removed? Perhaps User:Firefangledfeathers could weigh in on this with an opinion. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 06:36, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

The NYT article from 2024 says clearly that it was multiple officials, plural, at the US Department of Health and Human Services, not just the person, so I summarized it as such. Also note, just as I and various other users tried to explain to you countless times in the various noticeboards that part of this discussion has gone around - this isn't a new story, it is the same story that was also already covered in 2022, which is why I combined the paragraph with the existing story, which is also what several others and I kept telling you that we already cover it at the SOC article, but you are welcome to extend it. This also showed that professional advocates advocated for the change and added the only new detail, which is that in addition to professional advocates as cited from the 2022 story, it also included officials from the US HHS. Note that this also matches the fact that the Congress committee has opened an investigation on the HHS, not on the person (whether it is partisan motives is a separate question). I removed one ref as it was WP:REFCLUTTER and did not add any facts (in fact, it's just a by-sentence of that ref at the very end as that ref article actually centers on something else, which has not been picked up by anyone else, which is what that part of that ref was cited for WP:NOTNEWS in the noticeboard discussions, so only the by-sentence in the last paragraph of that ref is relevant to this story here, but is incomplete as doesn't state any of the facts of the reporting of the NYT article) that were not already covered by the (in this case much better) article of the NYT on the HHS's involvement.

Just because a source can be considered reliable, doesn't mean it is necessary to be added as a ref, if it doesn't add any information that we have not already accurately extracted from other refs, again, see REFCLUTTER for more details.

On a sidenote, as the NYT story mentions the source of who is trying to stir up this "controversy", Wikipedia has a long history of the disinformation by pushed by this individual, who was eventually banned from Wikipedia, so we have to be extra careful of information pushed by them on this CTOP area, as they have used Wikipedia before trying to push their views, including using sockpuppetry. Raladic (talk) 14:43, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Raladic, I think it's a bit misleading to say that "multiple officials" from HHS were involved in the push to drop the limits. At least according to the NYT article you link, it was "staff for Adm. Rachel Levine", particularly her chief of staff, who were passing along Levine's preference. Am I misreading, or do other sources mention officials not on Levine's staff? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to be misleading and it's accurate that it's multiple per "Email excerpts from members of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health recount how staff for Adm. Rachel Levine, assistant secretary for health at the Department of Health and Human Services..". This is a question of healthcare and this is a person acting in their official role as Assistant Secretary of Health to advocate for good such healthcare. The hill story on it just re-refers to the times story for the section, but it also has one extra bit that helps with reasoning - "n a statement to the Times, a spokesperson for HHS said Levine, who is transgender, “shared her view with her staff that publishing the proposed lower ages for gender transition surgeries was not supported by science or research, and could lead to an onslaught of attacks on the transgender community." - So, the advocacy for the removal of the age limits doesn't seem controversial at all (other than someone now trying to make up a controversy), and as our summary already indicated from the other 2022 story, it was also advocated for by other transgender advocates, who had similar science-based concerns, which is why the final SOC8 guidelines from WPATH did change the wording on limits.

In any case, I've now added this extra detail to the article and added the note that it was staff of the Assistant Secretary that did the advocacy, so hopefully this helps with consensus, please take a look at the edited version and let me know :) Raladic (talk) 15:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

In SWOC's proposed language and your version, we are not saying that there was any controversy. We're just attributing the push to Levine, which is supported by The Hill's "shared her view". I agree other advocates were involved, and I would oppose removing mention of them. We should probably add a bit about the advocacy from the AAP.

I like your version more than the status quo ante. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay with response, I was inundated with life tasks. Responding to Raladic's comment. WP:BLP does not say that critical information about living persons cannot be included in Wikipedia articles. WP:BLPPUBLIC states: "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it". This is exactly the situation we have here. No public figure is immune from criticism, if it is supported by highly reliable sources. Also, as Firefangledfeathers noted, all other officials mentioned are actually Dr Levine's staff that acted on her instructions. If there were any other notable individuals or entities pushing for this change, I do not mind mentioning them too, so long as it is supported by high quality sources. However I should also note that no one else got so much media attention as Dr Levine due to her official status. As for controversy, I did not propose to use that word in the article, but I think it is correct to use it as my personal assessment in a talk page discussion, considering that the story got so much coverage in the mainstream media. Having said that, I agree that the present version is an actual improvement. But I think we should also make this line more specific:

"An earlier draft would have required several years of transgender identity before an adolescent could begin treatment."

I think better wording would be:

"An earlier draft would have required the age minimums for hormonal treatments and surgeries."

And this line

"After criticism from transgender advocates, as well as from staff of Assistant Secretary for Health of the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), this provision was removed in the final release."

I propose to change to

"After criticism from transgender advocates, as well as urging from staff of Assistant Secretary for Health of the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), this provision was removed in the final release."

This is the language used by NYT and The Hill. Otherwise, the present version is good, thank you. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 11:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

The "required several years" wording was the specific wording from the draft and also much more explained in the earlier 2022 story from when the change actually happened from draft to final version. So, I think that one is still a better summary since it used the precise language from the SOC8 document draft, and this article is about the SOC after all.

As for the other line on the criticism, I don't think changing "as well as from" to as well as urging from" is dramatically better, if anything, prose wise its harder to read, plus it's a bit at odds with the actual spokesperson quote right after, which was that Levine "shared her views...", which doesn't sound like urging, so I think just keeping it "as well as" is fine, since whether it was just sharing views, or urging, it still amounts to "criticism from". So, I think that summary as it is right now, is more neutral as a summary terminology per our POV guidelines. Raladic (talk) 18:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

The reason why I propose to use "age minimums" and "urging" or "pressing" is because most sources use these specific terms. It was not so much criticism from HHS staff, as much as it was a push in a certain direction.

NYT:

"The statement followed a report in The Times that a federal health official had urged the removal of age minimums from treatment guidelines for transgender minors."

The Economist

"...Rachel Levine, a trans woman who is assistant secretary for health, succeeded in pressing WPATH to remove minimum ages for the treatment of children from its 2022 standards of care."

The Hill

"...the staff of Adm. Rachel Levine, an assistant secretary at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), had urged the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), an organization devoted to researching transgender health care, to remove age minimums for gender-affirming medical care from its guidelines for minors."

I'm not insisting that my proposed wording is perfect, I'm open to any other suggestions. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)