Talk:Transgender Trend

Stub

This is a pure stub and needs expansion.CycoMa (talk) 03:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

So fix it. — Bilorv (talk) 17:34, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Original author banned and possible deletion

Please note that I have taken a speedy deletion tag off this article. The proposed reason was WP:G5 which I don't think applies as other editors have done significant work on this. If there is another argument for deletion then probably that can best be advanced by using the WP:AfD process. I have also done the same to Debbie Hayton for the same reasons.

Assuming the article is to be kept, I would advise people to be somewhat cautious of its contents given that its original creator is blocked and has had multiple sockpuppets blocked. That said, the contents do not look too bad to me. My view is that anything wrong with the article is fixable and that two paragraphs is about the right level of coverage for a small group of this type which has achieved minor notability. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Why not say "debunked" for social contagion?

It seems to me that it's more than simply controversial to suggest that rapid onset gender dysphoria is a thing. They theory is trash. Why not call it debunked? 47.217.103.12 (talk) 16:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

For it to be debunked it would need to be taken seriously enough for serious people to actually spend their time to debunk it in detail. It is more of a crackpot conspiracy theory that serious people don't want to waste their time on. The word "debunked" does not appear in the ROGD article. So, while I'd be perfectly happy call it "debunked" when speaking for myself colloquially, I'm not sure that "debunked" is the word we are looking for here but I do agree that "controversial" doesn't fully capture it either. If people click through to the article they will see the train wreck but we want to say something for those who don't click it. I've added "which is not recognized by any major professional association as a valid mental health diagnosis" on to the existing description. That phrase is lifted from the ROGD article and is reliably referenced here so I think that is safe. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:49, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Anti-trans

Starting this talk-page section to explain my recent insistence on this point, and hopefully avoid an edit war: yes, Transgender Trend are anti-trans. This fact is very well documented in reliable sources to the point where even newsorgs like CNN call them that without qualifications. There is no WP:NPOV justification under those conditions to not call them "anti-trans". NPOV does not mean that we need to bend away from the sources to a hypothetical view-from-nowhere. In fact it means exactly the opposite: it means we need to follow what the sources say about a topic and not inject our own outside bias, even outside bias towards some hypothetical "center". This is clearly demonstrated at policies like WP:WEASEL and WP:FALSEBALANCE. Loki (talk) 21:30, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Are there any sources disputing the designation "anti-trans"? I am not aware of any independent RS doing so. Newimpartial (talk) 01:13, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

The problem that me and other editors have is that calling the group "anti-trans" would be giving UNDUE weight to a minority of sources (only three), while ignoring the vast majority of sources that do not say the organization is anti-trans. CNN and PinkNews, popular press sources, are also less reliable compared to the International Journal of Sociology, an academic journal. So if the "anti-trans" claim is featured, the article should cite the journal as saying the group is "anti-trans". X-Editor (talk) 02:36, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Just wondering, if three is a minority of sources, could you show the other RS that dispute the characterization as anti-trans? 104.177.94.141 (talk) 02:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

The point i'm trying to make is that the majority of sources don't even feature this characterization, meaning the vast majority of sources don't take the "anti-trans" claim seriously in the first place. That is the majority viewpoint. The minority viewpoint is the "anti-trans" one. X-Editor (talk) 02:43, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Not including a certain characterization is not "not taking it seriously" it is simply not using that phrasing. IMO the fact that three RS DO use the term should be enough to justify its use in categorizing this organization. 104.177.94.141 (talk) 03:05, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Also found another source describing transgender trend as transphobic

104.177.94.141 (talk) 03:20, 4 September 2022 (UTC) 104.177.94.141 (talk) 03:20, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Please point to where in wikipedia policy it says that editors may perform their own original studies and determine that the lack of a statement is the same as endorsing an idea.

Following your own logic this article not stating "X-Editor is not a nonce" is tantamount to you being called a nonce by a RS. 104.177.94.141 (talk) 03:24, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

In which case we have bigger things to worry about than this edit war 104.177.94.141 (talk) 03:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Im sorry to reply so many times but this argument is just patently ridiculous, following your logic we should remove every claim made in every article that is not included in the majority of citations for that article, because any claim such as that is implicitly refuted by the majority of sources. 104.177.94.141 (talk) 03:30, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@Crossroads:@Blurryman: Pinging other editors that have disputed the "anti-trans" claim. X-Editor (talk) 02:36, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Re: meaning the vast majority of sources don't take the "anti-trans" claim seriously in the first place - do you have a source for that? It sounds like OR/SYNTH/"original interpretation" on your part.

Also, pinging editors you believe might agree with you is also known as WP:CANVASSING; please don't do that, especially on a topic subject to WP:ACDS. Newimpartial (talk) 02:58, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I pinged the other editors because they were involved in the edit war and they were the only ones that had not commented, not because they agree with me. X-Editor (talk) 03:13, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I have replied to that claim in this comment on user Talk (which seems the more appropriate venue). Newimpartial (talk) 03:28, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree that anti-trans is a valid descriptor. Also, I think we should try and get a larger consensus, polling in the LGBT and Gender wikiprojects, about listing organizations as anti-trans or transphobic, since editors often seem to have issue with it. Overall, I find the notion that organizations such as Transgender Trend, the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine, and Genspect, which are known only for opposing transgender rights (which medical consensus, human dignity, and Wikipedia's own guidelines around gender support) can't be described as anti-trans, ridiculous. Especially when reliable sources use the descriptor and it's fairly straightforward that they are. All on the basis that some don't call out or even advocate their fringe viewpoint.

In terms of medical consensus, see the CAAPS statement on ROGD alone: There are no sound empirical studies of ROGD and it has not been subjected to rigorous peer-review processes that are standard for clinical science. Further, there is no evidence that ROGD aligns with the lived experiences of transgender children and adolescents. ... recent medical articles have started including ROGD in their overview of adolescents with gender incongruence, and there has been an increase in books, videos, podcasts, and training directed to parents and clinicians offering strategies for diagnosing and treating ROGD. The proliferation of misinformation regarding ROGD is also infiltrating policy decisions. Currently, there are over 100 bills under consideration in legislative bodies across the country that seek to limit the rights of transgender adolescents, many of which are predicated on the unsupported claims advanced by ROGD. ... Terms, such as ROGD, that further stigmatize and limit access to gender-affirming and evidence-based care violate the principles upon which CAAPS was founded and public trust in clinical science. ... CAAPS supports eliminating the use of ROGD and similar concepts for clinical and diagnostic application given the lack of empirical support for its existence and its likelihood of contributing to harm and mental health burden. When the majority of world health organization's classify something as unsupported junk that's used to attack the rights of transgender people and likely to cause harm, and reliable sources point out they are known for trying to argue it exists anyways, why is it considered such a gigantic leap and bound to neutrally state they are anti-trans/known for anti-trans advocacy (when people call it out in those terms)? Are we really supposed to support "trans kids don't exist and are being brainwashed by big gender" as a valid POV on a level playing field with MEDRS and human rights?

If an organization described homosexuality as a mental illness that most kids grow out of and need counseling for, described it as a trend and choice that children are being influenced towards, as every major medical organization looks on and disagrees, and reliable sources call them out as homophobic for that, would we have such arguments about why they're not homophobic and it's supposedly so wildly POV to use that term?

This argument keeps getting played out over and over again, where we give cover to anti-trans organizations and normalize them as if calling them out is equally valid with supporting them, and I believe we should seek consensus and guides over how much weight we give to anti-trans arguments and organizations. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 04:00, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I think the reason why so many editors dispute the anti-trans descriptions is because transgender issues are more controversial right now than gay issues. Getting a larger consensus on the LGBT and Gender wikiprojects about these issues sounds like a great idea and you are welcome to do so if you want to. X-Editor (talk) 04:17, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

If a value-laden label is used only in a minority of sources, and most sources on the topic refrain from doing so, that is absolutely a valid factor showing that in-text attribution is appropriate. Turning it around, if a group such as Stonewall is given an unflattering descriptor by a minority of RS, it would not be appropriate to use that label in wikivoice in the first sentence.

Every topic is different, so even if a label did apply to one, that may not be so with others. The set of sources for each is different.

It's a matter of encyclopedic WP:IMPARTIAL tone. On topics related to race, sexuality, ethnicity, and politics, we refrain from such labeling. We generally don't see articles labeling groups as "anti-gay", "anti-black", and so forth. This isn't the tone the mainstream media and academia takes, generally (some of their articles are exceptions at times, but they should not be cherry-picked).

Regarding the pings, that was of users who were already involved via edits but who had participated on Talk (and hence could conceivably have missed the discussion). That is perfectly fine per WP:CANVASS since the intent is for all involved parties to participate. Pointing out their stated position in the discussion is also fine, especially to counter the inaccurate claim being made that there is a consensus. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:49, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

The particular value in the label is that trans people are human beings deserving of rights, is that not a position Wikipedia should take? Do you deny that these orgs support things which MEDRS consider harmful pseudoscience? Normally you are quick to insist on MEDRS, except for when the overwhelming consensus is in favor of transgender rights and therefore WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE and WP:FALSEBALANCE would support describing an organization as anti-trans. What matters more, the opinions of newspapers, or facts of what they've done and the medical consensus on them?

To consider your Stonewall example, if many reliable sources pointed out that Stonewall verifiably advocated against transgender rights and described them as anti-trans, and the rest merely described times they were advocating against transgender rights without describing them as "anti-trans" or instead used euphemisms for anti-trans, and their positions were verifiably directly in opposition to what MEDRS considered best practice for trans people to respect their rights, dignity, and health, then we could and should describe them as anti-trans. However, moving from hypothetical to reality, that's the case with these organizations, not with Stonewall. Are there reliable sources which describe their activities as supportive of trans rights or refute the fact activities they've engaged in are classified by MEDRs as detrimental to transgender people's wellbeing?

Looking at Category:Organizations that oppose LGBT rights: the National Coalition for Proper Human Sexual Rights and Family Values is described as anti-LGBT, Coalition for Marriage is described as opposing same sex marriage, Alliance Defending Freedom is described as supporting "restricting rights and protections for LGBTQ people", the American Family Association "opposes LGBT rights and expression", and NARTH "promoted conversion therapy". When they generally oppose rights, they are described as anti-LGBT or "known for restricting the rights of LGBT people". When they oppose specific rights such as marriage or push specific harmful practices such as conversion therapy, they are called out for it and the medical consensus on such is made clear. Generally, in other places we are unafraid to label bigotry and misinformation as such and classify advocating against the rights of LGBT people as advocating against LGBT rights. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 05:47, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Crossroads, in the earlier part of your comment you are repeating things you happen to believe (like On topics related to race, sexuality, ethnicity, and politics, we refrain from such labeling) but which are not, in fact, supported by WP community values or practices.

As far as the question of consensus, you appear to be alone among current participants in this discussion in opposing the inclusion of anti-trans. That reads to me as a policy-relevant consensus to include, but perhaps you would like to ping some editors you expect to agree with you, in an attempt to alter said consensus. Newimpartial (talk) 12:56, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

References

Description as a "charity"

An IP recently made a change that described Transgender Trend as a "charity". That word is reserved for registered charities in the UK. It is not a synonym for "non-profit organisation", which covers a much wider range of organisations.

I have checked the Charities Commission for England and Wales website and Transgender Trend is not listed as a charity there. Unless it is registered in Scotland or Northern Ireland, which is so unlikely that I am not even going to bother checking, it is not a UK charity. I reverted the edit for other reasons but this is just to give everybody, particularly those outside the UK, a heads up. If you see anybody adding a claim that this is a "charity" then please quickly check that it this remains invalid and, if it does, consider warning the editor who added it for inserting deliberate factual errors. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Recent attempts to soften content

I have twice reverted changes to the following text "Davies-Arai is also a clinical advisor to Genspect, an international gender-critical non-profit organisation known for advocating against transgender rights and spreading false claims about transgender healthcare.". In both cases the replacement seemed to be so vague as to deprive the text of much of its meaning. I don't want to get into an edit war so I want to see what everybody else thinks. Is there a problem with this text? If so, what actually is it and how can it be rectified to address this?

My view is that the Genspect article unambiguously supports the first part ("an international gender-critical non-profit organisation known for advocating against transgender rights") in its opening sentence. The second part ("spreading false claims about transgender healthcare") is also supported but maybe not quite so stridently as it is presented here. If we are to modify the text at all it should only be a small tweak to the second part (e.g. to add "accused of"). We could also copy one or more of the references across from the other article to support it better if it is felt that current reference is not sufficient. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)