Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:04, 10 October 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

LGBTQ+ studies This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies Organizations Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Skepticism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Addition of OR

@Colaheed777, you recently added a paragraph about SEGM's conference to the text. The source you cited for the paragraph says the following about the conference:

• Recently I attended a conference in New York, hosted by Society for Evidence Based Gender Medicine (SEGM), a US-based non-profit, where I was asked to give a presentation on ‘lessons from the largest youth gender clinic in the world’ – for that’s what GIDS was
• The conference was attended by professionals from other youth gender clinics around the Western world, which – like GIDS – have also received a rapid increase in referrals.
• Dr Kaltiala was also at the SEGM conference in New York. She reported the findings of the data they had collected on how young people treated with puberty blockers and hormones had fared.

Below is the text you added, with material that is not supported by the source underlined:

• In October 2023, the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine (SEGM) held its inaugural conference titled "International Perspectives on Evidence Based Treatment for Gender Dysphoric Youth." The event included over 30 speakers from various countries including Australia, Belgium, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Among the participants was Professor Gordon Guyatt, a Distinguished University Professor in the Departments of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact at McMaster University, known for his contributions to the field of evidence-based medicine.

As the majority of the text you added is OR, I kindly ask you to self-revert. Best, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for noticing. It is not OR; I actually forgot to add two more sources about the conference. SEGM's page is a very detailed one and, while it is a primary source, there is nothing controversial in the Misplaced Pages article - only the facts that the conference actually happened and who the speakers were. Their names, jobs, and photos all appear in the additional source. We can use a primary source for non-controversial info, and in this case, the link supports the main article from the Telegraph very well. I also added another mention from Substack. Colaheed777 (talk) 21:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

So I've just removed this per WP:UNDUE, WP:RS, and WP:UGC. The Telegraph article originally cited appears to be an opinion piece, so we can't use it for verifying factual reporting per WP:RSOPINION. The Substack link appears to be someone's blog, so unusable per WP:UGC. And the primary source from SEGM's website does not demonstrate due weight. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Sideswipe9th!

Based on your list of WP polices, - WP:UNDUE, WP:RS, WP:UGC, and WP:RSOPINION for Telegraph, can you explain why these sources are used on the SEGM's page? To be honest I'm struggling to grasp your logic and I'm starting to think that you are inclined to publish negative information about the organization while ignoring neutral or positive. Please, explain how they are different and why you accept their presence:

https://www.advocate.com/transgender/2022/5/04/science-behind-texasalabama-anti-trans-policy-full-errors

https://wyofile.com/health-experts-gender-affirming-care-saves-lives/

https://www.vice.com/en/article/m7gg54/florida-transgender-healthcare-minors

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/06/26/cbbcs-trans-messaging-damaging-children-says-mother/

https://transsafety.network/posts/segm-uncovered/

(Self- published source with certain position - neutral? Hmm)

https://www.proquest.com/openview/eb04c9f4cd760ac4ae049756494dc649/

(Primary source interpreted differently on the page)

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/subscribe/news/1/?sourceCode=DTWEB_WRE170_a&dest=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailytelegraph.com.au%2Fnew-south-wales-education%2Fhuman-rights-video-schooling-kids-on-gender-and-sex-slammed%2Fnews-story%2F4014a096731d25b1747001e3f2273417&memtype=anonymous&mode=premium&v21=GROUPA-Segment-1-NOSCORE

https://archive.ph/on0pI

(back up)

https://floridaphoenix.com/2022/08/03/showdown-lgbtq-rights-vs-state-ban-on-transition-related-medical-care-for-trans-kids/

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/avivastahl/transgender-trans-kids-healthcare-science

https://gaycitynews.com/idaho-bans-trans-girls-sports-bars-birth-certificate-changes/

(Neutral source about the contentious topic? Seriously?)

https://anewscafe.com/2023/01/17/redding/shasta-county-threat-assessment-code-red-as-publisher-threatened-trans-students-endangered-and-gateway-board-prepares-to-hire-sketchy-superintendent/

I suggest discussing these sources per the policy you shared and explain why some of the sources (I shared earlier) are suppressed or not used correctly while the ones above are perfectly fine according to the same policies.

I'd like to open a discussion on that. Colaheed777 (talk) 23:40, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I believe you've misunderstood my comment, the policy and guideline points highlighted are for specific issues with specific sources in your edit. The content you added overall was WP:UNDUE, this is because none of the three sources used contribute towards due weight due to their own source specific issues. Though The Telegraph is considered a generally reliable source per its RSP entry, the article you cited was an opinion piece, which per WP:RSOPINION cannot be used for verification of facts, it can only be used for verification of the author's opinion. Opinion articles do not contribute towards due weight. The Substack article you linked is some person's blog, so that is not considered a reliable source per WP:UGC. Unreliable sources do not contribute to due weight. Finally the primary source, the citation to SEGM's website cannot on its own demonstrate due weight. The SEGM page could be used to support a secondary, non-opinion article citation, if one could be found and the content has due weight, but on its own it could not be used for the content you added.

Taking the sources in order:

• The Advocate is considered a reliable source, and that article is factual reporting.
• WyoFile appears to be a local news site for the state of Wyoming. It appears to have strong editorial oversight and a publicly available editorial policy. It appears to meet the criteria for WP:RS. The specific article you highlighted appears to be factual reporting.
• There's no consensus for or against the reliability of Vice per WP:VICE. We are using it via attribution though, and it seems reliable for the content that it's supporting
• That particular Telegraph article is a piece of factual reporting, and not an opinion article. The Telegraph is considered a generally reliable source per its entry on WP:RSP
• The author of the Trans Safety Network article is considered a subject matter expert per a June 2022 discussion at RSN. The use of that source in this article was previously discussed in a June 2023 discussion at RSN, and its current usage as an additional source supporting another RS seems fine.
• The ProQuest link is for a paper published in what appears to be a peer reviewed journal.
• The Daily Telegraph Australia is a reliable source, and that piece appears to be factual reporting.
• The Florida Phoenix appears to be a local news site for the state of Florida. It appears to have strong editorial oversight and a publicly available editorial policy. It appears to meet the criteria for WP:RS. The specific article you highlighted appears to be factual reporting.
• Per WP:BUZZFEEDNEWS, BuzzFeed News is considered a generally reliable source. The specific article you highlighted appears to be factual reporting.
• Gay City News was discussed previously at RSN in December 2020. My reading of the rough consensus there is that it's reliable for content within its topic area (LGBT news), though others may differ and say no consensus. The specific article you highlighted appears to be factual reporting.
• anewscafe appears to be a local news website for the state of North Carolina. Though I can't find an editorial policy on their site, it does nonetheless appear to have editorial oversight. I'm seeing use of it by other reliable sources by both The Guardian and LA Times, so it could be reliable. That said, I'm not entirely sure what it's being cited for however, and this particular article does appear to be an opinion article so it looks like it could be safely removed. Digging through the article history it may have been an orphaned reference left behind after other content was removed or reworked. Not sure.

None of the sources in your list are considered WP:UGC. With the exception of one (anewscafe) all seem valid for the content they are supporting per WP:RS. As they are all factual reporting, they contribute to WP:WEIGHT, so the content it's being used to support seems due for inclusion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:41, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

This page has several grammatical errors and missing words.

Hi, this is my first time using the talk page on Misplaced Pages. As said in the title, this page has several grammatical errors and missing words. It needs proofreading. Usually I would edit these things myself, but this page is protected and I am not priveleged enough to edit it.

Several examples from the current version of the page:

"SEGM is often cited in anti-transgender legislation and court cases, sometimes files court briefs." The "sometimes files court briefs" part does not make sense.

"In 2020, SEGM received a $100,000 donation from the Edward Charles Foundation and 2021 SEGM's annual revenue grew to nearly $800,000" should say "in 2021".

"cite the results of their advocacy efforts in the United Kingdom NHS and Swedish Karolinska Hospital to built momentum to restrict care for trans youth globally." I believe built should instead be in the present tense.

"In February 2023, Mike Leman spoke for the Catholic Dioceses in support of Wyoming Senate File 111, which ban gender-affirming care for minors" should instead be something more like "which aimed to ban". Apologies if I have formatted this wrong, I need to learn more about being a good Misplaced Pages contributor. Ilovededue (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done, thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

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,

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 and the time you kept trying to add a POV tag 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

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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 ] 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 ] 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 (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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

• Start-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles
• Start-Class organization articles
• Low-importance organization articles
• WikiProject Organizations articles
• Start-Class politics articles
• Low-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Start-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• Start-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• Start-Class Skepticism articles
• Mid-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles