Jump to content

Talk:Transgender health care/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

29 October 2016

Hi everyone! I have updated this redirect page into a child article for the Transgender page. Let me know if you have any comments to make about my work! Brookeenglish (talk) 04:18, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review

Hi, I had a few thoughts about how to improve your article. First, I wanted to say that the structure of your article looks really good, and I think it will do great with expansion. As for things to improve upon, I think you could work a little bit on making your article more readable, like explaining concepts before you go into them, or really talking about what some of these medical things are. Also, I felt like your writing could have been a little more neutral. But overall, I'm excited to see where this article goes and how it grows. Good luck! Kmwebber (talk) 17:02, 29 October 2016 (UTC)Kmwebber

Peer Review

Hi! I think this is a great start to the article. I would definitely work on neutrality (be careful how you frame every sentence). Also, I think it would be great if you could talk about transgender people's lack of access to health care in general. Overall, great job! I look forward to seeing where this goes!! Venkam (talk) 19:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Room for expansion

There are a few obvious options for expansion that apply to most articles (e.g., adding information about the state of trans health care in more countries).

I think that the biggest hole might be described as "plain old health care for people who happen to be trans", like problems getting smoking cessation, broken ankles, and irrelevant genital inspections. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

WAID brings up several good points additionally as I had posted[1] this[2] might be useful in the Hormone replacement therapy subsection as it is a review --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:27, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Any use?

One of my students from a previous semester put together a version of this article together in their sandbox: User:Brookeenglish/Transgender healthcare. I didn't know if anything could be used in this article, but wanted to link to it here. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Source: suicide risk

Here's a source that could be useful for § Mental health care:

  • Haas, Ann P.; et al. (January 2011). "Suicide and Suicide Risk in Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Populations: Review and Recommendations". Journal of Homosexuality. 58 (1): 10–51. doi:10.1080/00918369.2011.534038. PMC 3662085. PMID 21213174. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |last2= (help)

—Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:48, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Peer review 2019

From User:Carwil

This article feels well-organized and broad-ranging. Here are some suggestions for further improvement:

  • The lead is too short for the article's current length and should not just define the term, but anticipate the main subjects of the article: transition, mental health related to transition and to trauma/discrimination, and care in different health systems.
  • Either geographically or historically, there should be acknowledgement of how health systems have ignored or erased transgender people or constrain(ed) them to not transition.
  • In countries, like the US, where health care is contingent on employment, widespread employment discrimination limits the quality of health care for trans people.
  • In many countries, there have been active private and public initiatives to improve health care for trans* people and these should be mentioned.
  • Some parts of Sexing the Body by Anne Fausto-Sterling may help with the historical background.
  • Some link to reproductive options for transgender people should be included on this page. See also Transgender pregnancy.
  • You might briefly define gender variance when you introduce it.
  • And you might explain why some regard "gender incongruence" diagnoses as positive for trans people. It's primarily bc it designates incongruence as a medical condition and confirms that sex reassignment, hormonal therapy etc. aren't "cosmetic" or "experimental" procedures, right?

¡Fuerza! --Carwil (talk) 15:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

UCSF Foundations II Course Wikipedia Project Group 3c

Our group of Doctor of Pharmacy candidates propose the following edits for this article:

  • renaming Health Risks into "Issues affecting transgender patients" to include points in caring for transgender patients (particularly for non-endocrinology specialties)
  • experiences and perspectives (including proper and appropriate terminology)
  • keep violence and mental health

Feel free to reply with suggestions and feedback. Rxbpherrera (talk) 21:10, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Foundations 2 2019, Group 3B Peer Review

Do the group’s edits improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”?

  • The group's edits improve the article by adding properly-cited information about health experiences and fixing the headings/organization of the article for easier navigation.--Mparagas18 (talk) 21:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Edits improve the structure of the article by adding in a 'Health Experiences' section under 'Issues affecting transgender patients'. Edits are balanced, neutral, and backed up by a secondary source. --Alexuang (talk) 17:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?

  • The group did rename their Health Risks into "ISsues affecting transgender patients" and they included how a majority of transgender patients feel in health experiences. They haven't edited or added a section about HRT therapeutics.

Person A: Are edits something something neutrally presented?

Person B: Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? If not, specify…

Person C: Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style? If not, specify… Yes, it is. Brendado425 (talk) 20:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Person D: Is there any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation? If yes, specify...

No, the systematic review Brian added information from was properly cited. Neither direct copying nor close paraphrasing were used in the added section.--Mparagas18 (talk) 21:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Planned addition to section 2.2 Mental Health

Greetings Wikipedians! After reviewing the page, I've gather necessary sources to make an addition to the section regarding mental health. Specifically, these additions will be about the following:

  • General mental health quality of the transgender population.
  • Anxiety and Mood Disorders in transgender individuals, (This addition will be an improvement on what's mentioned)
  • Autism Spectrum Disorders and their occurrences in transgender individuals.
  • Eating disorders in transgender individuals.
  • Mental health relative to support received from loved ones.
  • Difficulties and Improvements in psychiatric counseling for transgender individuals.

I will be drafting and building upon this addition within my sandbox. Those wishing to review my work is invited to visit my sandbox and to engage me within the sandbox's talk page. Currently the talk page is full of sources on the topic at hand, of which I will be narrowing soon. --Trueradical (talk) 01:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Trueradical: You may want to review WP:MEDRS. I'm not fully familiar with editing health topics myself, but as far as I know, you should prioritize systematic reviews when they exist, prefer indexed journals, avoid journals without peer review, etc. For example, from your list, (Khatchadourian, 2014) has 50 citations and is published on The Journal of Pediatrics which is indexed on JCR, while (Ximena, 2016) has 7 citations and is published on Pediatrics in Review which seems to be unindexed. Folks at WikiProject Medicine might be able to help assessing sources. --MarioGom (talk) 07:34, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the advice, MarioGom! I've taken note to review WP:MEDRS and to assess my gathered resources accordingly, likely within the next two days. Once I've completed this review of the material, I'll post such on this talk page, in case any other contributors would be interested in checking my work. --Trueradical (talk) 13:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
I've constructed what I believe to be a good addition to the article. It's over at my sandbox. If anyone would like to read or critique my work, then I invite them to do so, just leave the commentary on my sandbox's talk page and I'll take a gander. Thanks! --Trueradical (talk) 18:07, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
After submitting my draft to a few collegues of mine, I've posted my update. I'll still be around for any critiques, so feel free to message me! --Trueradical (talk) 13:08, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 July 2019 and 23 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ellenberkley, Kim05.rosario, Jhpham, Rxbpherrera. Peer reviewers: Alexuang.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2019 and 7 November 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Trueradical.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposed changes to Section 4 based on the New England Journal of Medicine citation

I was curious about the findings in the NEJM article cited in the Health care for transgender youth section so I ended up reading the article and the protocol document for the study. There were a couple items that stood out to me that contradicted the current summary on the wiki (which is from the Abstract, not the actual paper). First item was that the variables discussed in the article (depression scores, anxiety scores, scores for life satisfaction) changed positively among trans males but not trans females. There's no explanation offered for this, although according to Figure 2 the overall changes in scores are relatively small so it might just be a sample size issue. Second item would be that two of the participants committed suicide after beginning the study - and this is after disqualifying individuals from the study who were suicidal at the beginning of the study (or "visibly distraught", Section 4.6 of the study's protocol). Would it be fair to reword the section to say that the findings in the study are mixed, and expand the discussion on it on the wiki to add some of the findings from the paper? I think it's definitely worth leaving in given its apparent profile - there are a plethora of articles about the findings.

As an FYI, the NEJM site is paywalled, but if anyone else is interested they allow access to 2 free studies/articles per month. I'd highly recommend reading through the article and the linked protocol document.--Bayou Tapestry (talk) 02:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Seem to have stumbled into a bit of a rabbit hole here. Given what I saw in the NEJM article, I read over the previous citation that was used here for "In a 2018 review, evidence suggested that hormonal treatments for transgender adolescents can achieve their intended physical effects. The mental effects of GnRH modifiers are positive with treatment associated with significant improvements in multiple psychological measures, including global functioning, depression, and overall behavioral and/or emotional problems." One study in the evidence review measures the physical effects (the others did not measure it), so if this is discussed at all that study should be linked, not the evidence review. As for the portion regarding the mental effects, there are some serious issues with the studies linked by the evidence review (which is why the paper says "observed to be associated with" instead of "positive with treatment associated with" as the wiki says). The main one is the enormous lost-to-follow up rate in these studies - Table 5 in the evidence review reports this, saying the majority of the studies had a "high" attrition rate. Costa et al, which was one of the papers cited for the GnRH modifiers (aka puberty blockers) improving global functioning and that the evidence review said had a "medium" attrition rate, had a lost-to-follow up rate of 70% between when patients eligible for puberty blockers received them and the end of the trial. One of the studies cited saying that puberty blockers showed improvements to depression/emotional/behavioral scores, de Vries et al says in Table 3 that the data was not significant; the measurements for Depression/Anger/Anxiety all had high P-scores which while not invalidating the data means that that it can't support the conclusion that we've assigned it. In fact, if it was significant then there's some pretty contradictory information here, including that anxiety scores got worse over time for the MtF population and depression scores got worse after GRS. From that foundation we've somehow gotten to "significant improvements in multiple psychological measures".
I think it's worth rewriting this section, at the very least to remove or reword the parts about the NEJM study or the AAP evidence review. I think it's worth linking to the writing around the Dutch Protocol, adding in some of the history and maybe discussing the areas of ongoing research and study.--Bayou Tapestry (talk) 05:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Merge from sex reassignment therapy to transgender health care

Sex reassignment surgery was recently moved to Gender-affirming surgery (as were the MTF and FTM articles), making sex reassignment therapy inconsistent. While this inconsistency could be fixed by moving the article, WanderingWanda suggested that a better outcome would be to merge the article with transgender health care.

Notably transgender health care includes "gender-affirming care" as an "also known as" in bold in its lead and gender-affirming therapy has been a redirect to transgender health care since September 2022. – Scyrme (talk) 15:04, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Support it doesn't look like there's anything that wouldn't belong if these articles were merged. LarstonMarston (talk) 18:24, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Comment Shouldn't the "Transgender health care" article also cover how trans people in general are treated in a medical setting? Isn't there a lot of discrimination even when the issues present are not related to the person's transness?★Trekker (talk) 21:04, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Support: for the reasons stated by Scyrme and LarstonMarston. --Xurizuri (talk) 04:36, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Support. The current situation is confusing, and there is too much overlap. Hist9600 (talk) 02:44, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
I've gone ahead with the merge. Some cleanup of the copied text is still required, I'm sure. I did not merge the "Psychological treatment" section as it seems wholly outdated, or "Ethical, cultural, and political considerations" since it looks like a combination of WP:FRINGE, things already covered here, and things covered in other articles. I'll paste the bibliography below in case someone finds it useful.
Bibliography

■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 14:24, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Equitable Futures - Internet Cultures and Open Access

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2023 and 12 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): GJustVibin (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Th4td4nc3r13.

— Assignment last updated by Th4td4nc3r13 (talk) 19:47, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

About WPATH SOC version 8 and the accuracy dispute template in the Eligibility section

I am translating this article to Chinese and I saw the accuracy dispute template in the Eligibility section. So I checked the newest SOC (version 8) and its description of gender dysphoria says the following:

"GENDER DYSPHORIA describes a state of distress or discomfort that may be experienced because a person’s gender identity differs from that which is physically and/or socially attributed to their sex assigned at birth. Gender Dysphoria is also a diagnostic term in the DSM-5 denoting an incongruence between the sex assigned at birth and experienced gender accompanied by distress. Not all transgender and gender diverse people experience gender dysphoria."

Whereas version 7 says this:

"Gender dysphoria: Distress that is caused by a discrepancy between a person’s gender identity and that person’s sex assigned at birth (and the associated gender role and/or primary and secondary sex characteristics)"

So the main difference here is that one line mentioning DSM-5. I think this is because they want to make sure people know about the different wording in DSM-5 and ICD-11. The following entry from SOC version 8 talks about gender incongruence:

"GENDER INCONGRUENCE is a diagnostic term used in the ICD-11 that describes a person’s marked and persistent experience of an incompatibility between that person’s gender identity and the gender expected of them based on their birth-assigned sex."

But there is no entry about gender incongruence in SOC version 7. So they most likely added that one line in their definition for gender dysphoria to acknowledge the change in ICD-11, and to make sure people don't get confused by the differences in DSM-5 and ICD-11, but the basic definitions about gender dysphoria is the same in both SOC version 8 and 7. So think we could remove the template. --LT1211 (talk) 01:22, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Resolved
I updated the content from the SOC to reflect the version 8 wording. Nosferattus (talk) 00:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Crime and Media

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Spicymama01 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Catluver777, Easynsimple, KillerTiger0317.

— Assignment last updated by Dmaccartney (talk) 04:10, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 17 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): GayOliviaPope (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Narzse, Anonymos1034.

— Assignment last updated by User78632 (talk) 15:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Canadian Blood Donation section outdated

I was translating this page to Chinese and I noticed that the section under "Blood Donation" is outdated. This section says that transgender blood donors would be asked question based on their AGAB had they not received any bottom surgeries. But on the website referenced in this section it says that now transgender blood donors could register under their real gender, although only a binary one. This probably means that Canadian Blood Service changed their criteria on trans donors at one point. But when I checked wayback machine I found out that the earliest snapshot was from 2022 after the (assumed) change, and googling also doesn't return any useful result that can indicate a time of that (assumed) change for me. Does anyone know anything about this (assumed) change? --LT1211 (talk) 20:57, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

European info is very inaccurate

Can you update (preferably unlock) this article? It is very outdated. Transgender health care in Europe is very different from USA and UK only. UK had the Tavistock-scandal causing a major shift in opinion how to treat transgender youth. Finland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark no longer provide gender affirming care under 18. They focus more on only psycho therapy. Only under highly exceptional cases. UK tends to bend to that sytem too due to the scandal. Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Spain, Italy never fully adopted the Dutch protocol system of gender affirming care for teenagers and had stronger age limits. Here a good link to see the differences: https://tgeu.org/trans-health-map-2022/ 2A02:A443:5030:1:F53D:5093:D65E:6E72 (talk) 11:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Criticism

I also miss a paragraph about criticism on the system. For instance concerns about Iatrogenesis, the controversy about psychotherapy and conversion therapy, what happened at the clinic of Kenneth Zucker and why it go shut down, what happened at the Tavistock clinic and why it got shut down. 2A02:A443:5030:1:F53D:5093:D65E:6E72 (talk) 11:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

"Sex reassignment therapies" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Sex reassignment therapies has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 17 § Sex reassignment therapies until a consensus is reached. Raladic (talk) 17:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

new revisions 07.2024

planning to add more info on HIV in the transgender community, slight organization and edits in other sections as needed Ucstudybd (talk) 07:00, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Goals

  1. Determine what sections should be added to article (advocacy, history, background, efforts, disparities)
  2. Expand on the information provided
  3. Add images to article
  4. Find references/ resources
  5. communicate with each other on changes/edits made
Finish Article by Tuesday (July 30th, 2024)
Start working on presentation by Wednesday morning and finish presentation by Thursday night.

128.218.42.61 (talk) 23:07, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Outline/Plan

This is our propose plan/outline for our article.
Lead: Transgender Healthcare
Article body
Background/History (Balpreet)
Healthcare Needs (Bill)
Disparities (unmed needs)
-Discrimination (Bill)
-Knowledge incompetency (Christine)
-Research Incompetency (Cindy)
-Insurance (Balpreet)
Advocacy/Resources (Cindy)
Expands Health experience section (Christine)
Referenceshttps://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/wellness-and-prevention/transgender-health-what-you-need-to-know
https://transcare.ucsf.edu/guidelineshttps://www.who.int/standards/classifications/frequently-asked-questions/gender-incongruence-and-transgender-health-in-the-icd Bbadhesha (talk) 22:47, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

128.218.42.61 (talk) 23:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Foundations II

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 June 2024 and 17 August 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bbadhesha, Ucstudybd, C.chang04, Clcorp (article contribs). Peer reviewers: JohnnyLi24, Vy Ton, Irenamurray, Eileemendoza, Jaysamson10.

— Assignment last updated by Health Economics and Policy (talk) 16:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Foundations 2 2024, Peer reviews from Group 2

Person A:

1. Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”?

Lead:They have not updated the lead to reflect new contents added.

Content:The group added new relevant contents around topics such as history, unmet needs, HIV, detransitioning, and advocacy. In addition, they added onto several existing contents.

Tone and Balance:Overall, the they did a great job at using neutral language with their contents. I only found one edit which the group can consider make a change below:

- Instead of using great to describe the event, the group could use neutral words such as "major" for the following edit "In 1966 the John Hopkins Gender Clinic was started. It was a great step towards transgender healthcare as it provided care for transgender individuals, including hormone replacement therapy, surgery, psychological counseling, and any other gender affirmative healthcare."

Sources and References:They did a great job by citing mostly secondary sources. Some sources used are websites of organization, but I decided it was fine since they used these sources to describe the services provided by those organizations. There is one online article which they can consider change to a more reliable source.

Organization:Contents are located in appropriate places on the page.

Images&Media:They added one picture.

2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?

The team did achieve most of their goals. They also added contents not discussed in their plan such as HIV, trans old adults, and detransitioning.

Background/History (Balpreet)- yes

Healthcare Needs (Bill) - yes

Disparities (unmed needs) -Discrimination (Bill) - not sure

-Knowledge incompetency (Christine) - no

-Research Incompetency (Cindy) - no

-Insurance (Balpreet) - yes

Advocacy/Resources (Cindy)- yes

Expands Health experience section (Christine) - yes

3. Does the article meet Wikipedia guidelines?

Yes, they have written in a neutral manner and provided citation for all contents added.

Person A: Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view?

Overall, the team added in content in a neutral point of view just as I mentioned in question 1 except for the one place I pointed out (please refer to question 1).--JohnnyLi24 (talk) 23:05, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Person D:

1. Yes, the team’s edits have substantially improved the article as outlined in the Wikipedia peer review’s “Guiding framework.” They have added a new section specifically addressing "HIV in transgender people," which enriches the content by covering a critical aspect of transgender healthcare. Furthermore, the team has expanded the "Health experiences" section, providing a more comprehensive understanding of the unique health challenges faced by transgender individuals. They also worked on enhancing the citations throughout the article, ensuring that the information is well-supported by reliable sources. Overall, these improvements have significantly enhanced the quality and depth of the article, making it a more valuable resource. Vy Ton (talk) 22:56, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

2. The group has met its overall improvement objectives. They have effectively introduced significant new content, including the section on "HIV in transgender people," expanded existing sections like "Health experiences," and enhanced citation quality. These contributions collectively make the article more detailed and well-supported, fulfilling their aim of increasing its depth and relevance. Vy Ton (talk) 22:56, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

3. The article meets Wikipedia guidelines. The team has diligently adhered to the principle of using neutral language, ensuring that the information is presented in an unbiased and balanced manner. They have also made a concerted effort to base their content on reliable sources, such as the CDC, which enhances the credibility and accuracy of the information provided. By focusing on these guidelines—neutrality and verifiability—the article upholds Wikipedia's standards for reliable and objective content, thereby ensuring it serves as a trustworthy resource for readers. Vy Ton (talk) 22:56, 27 July 2024 (UTC) 

   D. Yes, the edits incorporate language that promotes diversity, equity, and inclusion. By including data on the higher rates of HIV infection among transgender individuals, the edits address health disparities impacting this group. The use of reputable sources like the CDC and adherence to USPSTF guidelines highlight the need for personalized healthcare recommendations for transgender people. The recommendation for universal HIV screening among transgender individuals, with follow-up testing based on individual risk, underscores a commitment to equitable healthcare practices that cater to their specific needs. This approach supports inclusivity by acknowledging and tackling the distinct health challenges faced by transgender individuals.Vy Ton (talk) 22:55, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Person B: Jay Samson

1) Yes, the group has made substantial edits to this articles. They have added certain sections that gives this article a more meaningful value. For example, adding the section of "HIV in transgender people," gives insight on prevalent HIV are with transgender people and how care have changed to treat HIV in this population. Additionally, the section for advocacy shares how much transgender care have changed throughout the years, which shows how much we have come from before.

2) Yes, I think the group has done a perfect job on improving the overall goal of this project. As the sections they have added gave the article more history and well-rounded detail that is backed with valuable evidence.

3) Yes, the articles does meet the Wikipedia guidelines. As they group uses effective language and shows no bias between the topic.

B) The group use reliable secondary sources that backs up their information throughout the changes they have made to this article. The articles are freely available and have been obtained in reliable journals and review articles of each topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaysamson10 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Person C: Eilee Mendoza

1. Yes, the group definitely improved the article through their edits. They added more organizational structure to make the article easier to read and digest. They also went about the information through a different lens that is more inclusive to different communities.

2. Yes, the group has been successful in their goal of improving the article. They added a lot more depth to article and added a lot more valuable information to the article that I think benefits the public on being educated on. Alongside educating the public on new communities, the people that belong to that community also will feel more included and valued which is very important.

3. Yes, the article meets the Wikipedia guidelines because they are secondary sources that come from reliable sources. C. Yes, I would definitely say the edits remain consistent with Wikipedia's manual of style. One thing that really stood out was how organized the article was. The group utilized the headers to section off the information which I think adds to the quality of an article on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eileemendoza (talk • contribs) 19:35, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Person B: Irena Murray

1. Do the group's edits substantially improve the article as described in the wiki peer review "guiding framework"?

Yes, the placement of the History section before the Healthcare Needs of Transgender People section makes the most sense ensuring that the reader gets an insightful background before being introduced to the logistics of gender-affirming care. Additionally, the inclusion and detailing of the Advocacy for Transgender Health Care is incredibly succinct and at an appropriate length compared to the importance of its subject, as are all the group's edited articles. Lastly, the expansion of the health experience and insurance sections leaves the reader with a good understanding of the topic of transgender healthcare without feeling as if the author had any perspective that wasn't neutral. As a whole, the group's edits substantially improved the article as per the guiding framework guidelines.

2. Has the group achieved their overall goals for improvement?

Yes, the group have successfully represented their achievement of stated goals through their addition of sections to the article including advocacy and history and their expansion of the information already provided - specifically the health experiences and healthcare needs portions.

3. Are the claims included verifiable with secondary cited sources that are freely available?

Yes, the group's equal integration of various secondary cited sources calls for a more balanced view on the topic because there were not a lot of statements that were just attributed to one or two of the same sources. A resourceful variety of journal articles and published papers were referenced for the reader to access with ease. No edited statements of this group were left unsourced and all credit was given where credit is due. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irenamurray (talk • contribs) 20:15, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Progress

Balpreet:

Added 7,000 characters, 1 image, and 10 references

Added an insurance section where we discussed how insurances can be a big obstacle in receiving gender affirming care

Added a background section where different definitions were discusses and an introduction to the topic was added.

Added a history section where we discussed what transgender healthcare has gone through over time and how it has reached to the access now. Bbadhesha (talk) 17:33, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Cindy:

Added 5,443 characters, 0 image, and 7 references

Added the "Advocacy for transgender health care" section where advocacy groups for transgender health are listed. C.chang04 (talk) 00:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Christine: Added characters: 8174 Added image: 0 Added reference: 7 Expanded on the Health experiences section by adding different negative experiences of transgender individuals in health care and how knowledge and training of healthcare professionals in this specific patient population can positively impact the health outcomes and well-being of this population. Clcorp (talk) 01:05, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Is this section of value, and balanced: "Advocacy for transgender health care"

The content here has been added recently. It is very many words, and written in a flowery, hard to read tone.

Q) For brevity: Are there reasons why the organizations listed could not simply have a sentence each?

Q) For wiki balance: should there not also be a list of advocacy organizations that criticize elements of transgender heath care, or who advocate different approaches?Peckedagain (talk) 21:23, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

The section was added by C.chang04 - so I will ping their talk page to share their further thoughts here, too. Peckedagain (talk) 23:19, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes the content is valuable, and no, we don't generally have WP:CRITS sections "for wiki balance" or include specific criticism that promote WP:FRINGE points or oppose something just because they don't like something. Raladic (talk) 23:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Reversion of section: 'Gender exploratory care'

Raladic reverted with "This page is not here to try to whitewash conversion therapy, which is widely condemned worldwide." While I personally find it objectionable. I'm not sure that "widely condemned worldwide" is accurate as I expect that condemnation of conversion therapy is largely restricted to approximately the same countries that allow some form of Marriage Equality. (Yes, I know that is the LGB, not the T, but a similar group, which represents well less than half the population of the planet. At minimum, I'd like to see referenced condemnation in both India and the PRC before such a statement would be accurate. I'm still not sure I agree with the reversion or not, but I think it needs to be more nuanced as a reason.Naraht (talk) 22:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

As is current consensus on Wikipedia, we have a subsection on Conversion therapy titled Conversion_therapy#Gender_exploratory_therapy that discusses it and the issues of it. It has no place on this article here on Transgender health care, at best, a link to the existing section at Conversion therapy could be added, but the whole section that was added was definitely an attempt at whitewashing it. So yes, I should have also mentioned WP:UNDUE as policy for the reversion instead, given that it is better served as it already currently is at the Conversion therapy article where it belongs. Raladic (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Raladic reverted my edit and wrote on my page different words:

  • Your recent edit to Transgender health care seemed less than neutral and has been removed.

I replied on my page that Ralladic could respond here on talk. I would like to learn what aspects of my text she found un-neutral, and which parts where 'whitewashing conversion therapy'.

Looking at my text in full: it mentions conversion therapy twice, the 2nd is quoting scathing criticism of it by UKCP!

  • Gender exploratory care
  • In contrast to the gender affirming approach which moves directly to medical intervention on the basis that the patient knows what they need, the exploratory approach recognizes that many with gender dysphoria have other factors or problems and the patient must be treated as a whole.
  • Some have criticized the exploratory approach as being conversion therapy under another name, including Ashley Florence's article "Interrogating Gender exploratory therapy" in the journal Perspectives on psychological science.
  • Others have supported it, eg in the United Kingdom in November 2023 the professional body the United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy issued a policy statement: "exploratory therapy must not be conflated with conversion therapy which seeks to change or deny a person’s sexual orientation and/or gender identity. Conversion therapy as so defined is harmful and must not be practised." and that "Within the interim Cass Review report, the exploratory approach is described as ‘therapeutic approaches that acknowledge the young person’s subjective gender experience, whilst also engaging in an open, curious, non-directive exploration of the meaning of a range of experiences that may connect to gender and broad self-identity’".
  • Others have supported gender exploratory therapy, eg an article in the Archives of Sexual Behaviour: 'One Size Does Not Fit All: In Support of Psychotherapy for Gender Dysphoria
  • ---------------- Peckedagain (talk) 23:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
As it is 100% apparent that my edit was not 'whitewashing conversion therapy, but rather the opposite: I will revert Raladic's deletion. Peckedagain (talk) 23:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
No, please refer to Talk:Conversion_therapy#Gender_Exploratory_Therapy_-_Cass_Review for an at length discussion of the content in the right article. It simply is not WP:DUE for the article here at Transgender health care.
These WP:FRINGE views do not warrant legitimizing conversion therapy as health care and are not due for this article here, just as you will find that after that lengthy discussion at the article where it does belong, very little was added for the UK either.
Wikipedia is a worldwide encyclopedia and this is a top level article on Transgender health care, not to promote WP:FRINGE pseudoscience of conversion therapy, no matter the name. A single sentence of Some have criticized the exploratory approach... does not address the NPOV pushing that happened here. So again, the content is simply not due in this article here, take it to the Conversion therapy talk page that I linked the lengthy discussion of when this was discussed last month(s) where you will find that it also was found undue there. Raladic (talk) 23:15, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
@Raladic - you have now taken me to an Arbitration - and mention this edit in it? Why curtail the discussion here in Talk so rapidly? The arbitration thing is a little scary, I must say. Sledgehammer to crack a nut? Peckedagain (talk) 00:30, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
@Raladic you mentioned the Conversion therapy page -so as suggested I have posted there the statement of UKCP regards exploratory care versus conversion therapy -[therapy&diff=prev&oldid=1240883231|see this URL] Peckedagain (talk) 00:51, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
@Raladic -I did what you suggested and mentioned the UKCP on the Conversion Therapy page -and you have immediately reverted it -writing: "Revert WP:NPOV per the talk page discussion that found this undue (which you were informed of)"
I'm finding this arbitration action you have taken and this latest revert thoroughly confusing.
How can we two calm things down between us? Peckedagain (talk) 01:02, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
I above specifically linked you to a Talk:Conversion_therapy#Gender_Exploratory_Therapy_-_Cass_Review talk page discussion, which discussed the UKCP statements and found them undue and you simply went and added them anyway. You were welcome to read that talk page discussion, but not to ignore the consensus and add what you believe is right. Raladic (talk) 01:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transgender_health_care/Archive_1&oldid=1257818486"