Talk:Time to Think (book)

Waterstones controversy

I've removed a section/paragraph added about the "Waterstones controversy". This was Twitter speculation that the reason the book couldn't be found in Waterstones bookshops wasn't that this widely praised and publicised book from a very minor publisher had simply sold out, but that the company was refusing to stock it or that its woke staff were hiding copies. I think per WP:NOTNEWS that a while a news website/paper might find it briefly interesting to include such a story (either on the basis that people being silly on Twitter is always worth a laugh, or because your readers are so credulously anti-trans that they will believe it might be true), people being wrong on Twitter isn't encyclopaedicly relevant to the book. Including mention of it here gives too much weight to Twitter conspiracy theories that are quite demonstrably false (the bookshop chain does indeed sell the book). -- Colin°^Talk 11:11, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Unbalanced

Explanation for my addition of the "Unbalanced" tag per Sweet6970's suggestion.

In particular, the Reception section appears unbalanced. Before I elaborate on each of the sourced reviews, I'll preface by saying that—regardless of whether you believe them to be correct or not—traditionally conservative and centre-right media outlets are generally not the most supportive of transgender people when it comes to trans rights and issues. I am also not advocating for or against gender critical/anti-trans/TERF views, but arguing that there is a bias here towards them. Here are each of the sourced reviews:

(Redacted)

Again, whether you agree or disagree with the reviews themselves, I think there is an imbalance present in favour of publications and authors who either claim to be or have been categorized as right-leaning or gender critical/anti-trans/TERFy. This article lacks representation from publications or authors who are more supportive of trans people and trans rights. As a final note, I would also like to bring up a Guardian article cited on the Wikipedia page for GIDS (the subject of Time to Think). Though Time to Think includes interviews with a number of former GIDS clinicians (one of whom, for example, argues that "around 5% 'commit themselves to a change of gender' and 60% to 70% grew up homosexual"—this calls to mind the concept of rapid-onset gender dysphoria, which has been criticized as "anti-trans propaganda and bad science"), the Guardian article discusses other GIDS clinicians who pushed back against a position statement made by the Association of Clinical Psychologists UK. They stated:

We acknowledge that there were some valid concerns about the GIDS service, not least the significant waiting times, but we take issue with how it is now being portrayed. ... [Having a "predominantly 'affirmative', rather than exploratory," approach] is often misrepresented as meaning that a trans identity is encouraged, or treated as a preferred outcome, when an alternative understanding is that this practice is a stance whereby no particular path or identity is privileged over any other.

I would like to know what the clinicians who signed that letter think about the framing and findings in Time to Think. —Matthew  / (talk) 16:07, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I would regard this review by Gaby Hinsliff [1] in the Guardian as a favourable review. You may remember that Hadley Freeman left the Guardian because she considered she was being censored on trans matters. And I don’t think that the Guardian is generally regarded as a right-wing publication.

You have not provided any reviews which are unfavourable to the book, so I think that the wording Barnes’ journalism has received praise. is justified.

Your comment above includes: this calls to mind the concept of rapid-onset gender dysphoria, which has been criticized as "anti-trans propaganda and bad science"), but as far as I am aware, there is nothing in the reviews which mentions this concept. I have just read the book, and I’m pretty sure that this concept is not mentioned at all. So your comment on this is not relevant.

Regarding the letter which is mentioned on the GIDS page: I do not see how this is relevant to this article, which is about a book, not about GIDS itself, which, as you have pointed out, has its own article. You might wish to know what the signatories think about the book, but unless/until they make a public statement about the book, there is nothing which we could include in this article.

Sweet6970 (talk) 17:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

@Sweet6970: Apologies for the delayed response, I was out. Thank you for bringing the Hinsliff article to my attention. I've incorporated it into the article, as well as removed the Unbalanced tag and included mention of the book's positive reception in the lead.

Upon reflection on my above argument, my mentioning of rapid-onset gender dysphoria was ill-worded, and was an insufficient point in my attempt to explain my thoughts on the article's neutrality. Though I also don't believe Time to Think mentions the concept by name, the idea does relate to some of the questions raised by the book—such as gender dysphoria in youths allegedly being influenced by other people, or the possibility of gender dysphoria manifesting as a "'social coping mechanism' for other disorders" like anxiety and depression. The article for rapid-onset gender dysphoria may be suitable for a See also section on this article.

Regarding my comment about the signatories of that letter: this was another attempted supporting point for my thoughts on the article's neutrality, but like my mention of rapid-onset gender dysphoria, it was lacking. I was trying to illustrate that there are relevant figures who may disagree with elements of Time to Think; however, since those figures seem not to have said anything on the matter, this is indeed a moot point. —Matthew  / (talk) 03:10, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

@MatthewHoobin: Thank you for your comments. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:46, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

This article lacks [representation] from publications or authors who are more supportive of trans people and trans rights. Possibly. The reception section is on the whole pretty positive about the book, which seems justified from the array of sources currently used. The pertinent question seems to be, what other reviews are there of the book? Are there any reviews that are critical of it that we are missing? Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:17, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: I'm content with the additional positive review from The Guardian's Gaby Hinsliff provided by Sweet6970. See above. —Matthew  / (talk) 03:13, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

As it currently stands, I would say the Reception section stands unbalanced in the opposite direction. What we have is a paragraph listing positive reviews from top-tier UK media outlets, and then a paragraph which construes a mixed-positive review from an Irish newspaper as a negative one. I do not think that Katy Hayes' review needs a whole paragraph (as much as we give to all the other reviews combined), but even if it does deserve this level of attention, some parts of what is written are clearly misleading. Our paragraph makes it sound like Hayes disagrees with Barnes' because "her own personal experience with GIDS in the mid-2010s was very different and more positive" (our phrasing). What Hayes actually says - "Our satisfactory experience with the Tavistock doesn’t mean I don’t agree with many of the criticisms in this book."

A better summary of Hayes' review might run like this:

Katy Hayes of the Irish Independent called it "meticulously academic, thoroughly footnoted and referenced" and "well-argued", but that "the overall tone of the book is so hostile that it is likely to become another weapon in the unfortunately loud and bitter war over this subject."

This would give a more appropriate weight to the review as a whole, and to the mixed content of the review as regards the book. Samuelshraga (talk) 08:26, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

@Samuelshraga: Agreed. I've updated the wording per your suggestion. —Matthew  / (talk) 13:38, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think this is quite how balance works, as though we count every word and choose now to only include "the overall tone of the book is so hostile" as the sole criticism. Hayes had more to say than just tone. I'm a bit puzzled now that MatthewHoobin has gone from claiming it is unbalanced by not including enough criticism from neutral (or opposing-view) authors to actively cropping what little criticism we had. I'm not over fussed about retaining Hayes "own experience" comment (though disagree with Samuelshraga -- she included it at some length for a reason). But I think the other text should be restored.

What we have here is essentially a bunch of "fan" reviews who are entirely uncritical, mostly by journalists who view the book as a weapon for their cause and have no incentive to pick flaws in it. And one review that is wonderfully neutral and balanced (Hayes). It is clear to me that Hayes is the only actual book review. The rest are mostly using the publication as a coatrack for which to write another anti-trans article for their newspaper. I think we should give more weight to actual book reviews. -- Colin°^Talk 15:21, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

If you want to say "Katy Hayes of the Irish Independent gave the book a mixed review, calling it ..." as the opening to that sentence I think that would be fine. I would agree that what we have is a series of positive reviews of a book. If negative reviews exist (in reliable sources), we should give them appropriate weight. If there's something else you think needs highlighting from Hayes' review, feel free to suggest it. However, I don't think it is Wikipedia:DUE to give extensive coverage to every critical comment in the one review that contains any particular criticism. It is not Wikipedia:BALANCE to spotlight every critical comment in a mixed review, in order to counter the fact that there seems to be universal critical approbation to the book elsewhere.

As for whether the other reviews are legitimate reviews or the journalists have ulterior motives, this seems irrelevant. There are many people (I am one of them) who think that Wikipedia ends up privileging false or contentious narratives because it limits itself to what is published in reliable sources, when sometimes those sources systematically ignore or delegitimise legitimate viewpoints or evidence. This may be one of those cases, but that's the way Wikipedia works, and although I too find that frustrating sometimes, there is no alternative. Samuelshraga (talk) 06:21, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I've reworked the reviews, putting them in alphabetical order of reviewer surname, and scanning through every review looking for comments the reviewer actually made about the book. It is surprising how little some reviews comment about the book itself, as I noted, most reviewers just use it as an excuse for them to regurgitate the story in the book in whatever way suits their agenda. We want to avoid a clear split where we seem to say "these are the positive reviews" and "these are the negative reviews" because it isn't like that. There aren't (currently) any overwhelmingly negative reviews. Quite a few reviewers note that the book is a bit of a chore to read at times (I would agree -- it could have done with a good editor, a consequence perhaps of it ending up at a tiny wee publishing house who apparently didn't change a word). So the result is each reviewer gets what they said about the book and if some said more, we say more, and if some comments take more words to explain, we take more words to explain. I don't think we should be counting words and weighing +/-. I think the end result is fair and better reflects what each reviewer was saying about the book than if we crudely truncate anyone because we over-simplistically put them in the "positive" or "negative" pot. It really is up to the book reviewers to do a book review, and not our fault if they don't. I added another couple of reviews and I ended up removing Hinslif's review (here) as it didn't really review the book (e.g., the "story" might well be one that "needs telling" but that doesn't tell us whether the book did a good job of it). -- Colin°^Talk 18:33, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

@Colin, I think you've done an excellent job, thank you. Samuelshraga (talk) 09:03, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

All of the reviewers on this page have made anti-trans statements before and hide behind the 'I just really appreciate impartial journalism' veil when it's obvious what they really went into the book looking for. I'm so tired. It never ends for trans people. BreakfastSonata (talk) 15:19, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned we have a WP:BLP violation here, with the detailed attack on the reviewers based on original research based on, em, who a journalist interviewed and the odd like on twitter. I wonder if MatthewHoobin would consider redacting that bit. We'd all get the point if you had just said that nearly all the reviewers align with a more gender critical viewpoint or their newspapers do. And what Sideswipe9th says is true: we can only comment on the reviews that exist. Are there any we haven't listed that are critical? -- Colin°^Talk 11:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

@Colin: Is a strikethrough or an outright removal the more appropriate course of action in redacting BLP-related information? —Matthew  / (talk) 03:15, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Outright removal but you might want to used the template {{redacted}} to demonstrate that something was removed. Nil Einne (talk) 14:17, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe this book is even worthy of a Wikipedia article.

It is a minor book published with no editing, and roundly recognised as a transphobic hit-piece and, as stated here multiple times, has not been "reviewed", as much as used as an excuse by other transphobic people to write their own transphobic article, with essentially no actual reviewing being conducted... not every book in the world merits a Wikipedia page, and I think this hatchet job is very much in the category of not meriting a Wikipedia article. That's my 2p. 49.184.205.155 (talk) 49.184.205.155 (talk) 18:30, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

The book has had serious reviews, which do not match your view. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:59, 29 August 2023 (UTC)