Talk:Detransition

Ky Schever's quotation - subject to deletion

@Crossroads: I have just restored the remarks made by Ky Schevers into the article. Ky is a very notable individual, who had a significant role in the anti-trans movement between 2013 and early 2020. Since leaving that movement, Ky has been active detailing their experiences within that community, as well as being cited as reporting on anti-trans organisations. Accordingly Ky meets the criteria laid out in WP:SPS, and as a WP:PRIMARY source can be used when following WP:INTEXT as was done here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:08, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

One issue with this is that it doesn't obey WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, but the main problem with it is that it is a self-published blog. Per WP:RS, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, and especially WP:DUE: Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. (Emphasis added.)

WP:SPS still says, Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Ky Schevers is an activist, whose work has occasionally been published by activist sites, not an accredited expert with published work in sociology or psychology. This is an especially an issue since the text in question veers into WP:MEDRS claims about the origin of particular "psychological harm". And all this self-published material is in the most prominent part of the article, the lead.

SPS goes on to say, Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources. I agree 100%. And what's to stop another editor from citing a blog by another detransitioner with another POV? I'm sure they could point to that person having written for that side's advocacy sites and being quoted in the media.

This should not be in the article and certainly not in the lead, and so far there is not a consensus for it - WP:ONUS would have to be met to include it. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:37, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

In the context that notability is being used in this discussion regarding Ky Schevers and content in the article, I urge that the criteria for notability be examined and followed. I also disagree with the Ky Schevers sources being placed in the lead of the article. I believe such sources, if used at all (individual accounts were previously removed), should be located in the "Cultural and political impact" section of the article to demonstrate the political, cultural, and social impact the notable individual accounts have had on this topic. And because detransition is a "controversial topic," it lacks study and unbiased media reporting, which constantly has to be taken into consideration by editors.ElisaShupe (talk) 16:21, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we should put Ky Schever's quote in the lead, however I do think that a section such as Elisa suggested and more generalized lead text/quote would help ensure the article is up to WP standards. Ky Schever's also involved with Health Liberation Now, which published a detailed and evidenced report of the current state of anti-trans conversion therapy here. I also found this paper analyzing the links between the ex-gay and ex-trans movements here. Also an article about religious conversion therapy for trans people here. They can also be used to expand/improve the conversion therapy article. Here is a review of detrans studies noting the difference between the research focused on supporting detransitioners and that focused on preventing detransition. This should help us start! TheTranarchist (talk)TheTranarchist — Preceding undated comment added 02:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• I think that it might be usable in the body (not the lead) but that if we're going to be cautious about it we have to be similarly cautious about citing other people's opinions and experiences in ways that imply that they're generalized. --Aquillion (talk) 22:53, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
• I've been watching this discussion for a while; decided to make an edit and leave an explanation & thoughts. I second Aquillion's statement; if individual accounts like Ky's are to remain in the article, extra care should be taken to make sure they aren't being generalized. Ky's experiences & influence are very context-specific. To illustrate the what I mean, I've edited the article to change the phrase "her experiences in the detrans community" to "her experiences in a community of radical feminist detransitioned women". There is no monolith Detrans Community, and Ky was not a participant in evangelical conversion efforts -- an important distinction, since the next paragraph delves straight into that topic. She also did not participate in newer segments of the detrans community; for example, when Ky was an active "detrans activist", Reddit and Twitter were not the detrans hotspots they are now, which are different (both in ideological slant and number of participants) from the Tumblr/Wordpress blog-driven and in-person communities that preceded them. Many of the parallels that Ky draws (e.g. the recycled 12-step phraseology) are highly specific to small groups she was in at the time, and don't necessarily reflect detransitioners as a whole, not even the ideological ones. It'd strengthen the article to include additional perspectives/experiences if Ky's is going to be kept. They can be difficult to source, though... IdentifierExpected (talk) 17:19, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Also, while I'm looking closely at the edit history... this section about Ky falls into the larger discussion about whether including "Individual Accounts" is encyclopedic, further up on the Talk page. Per that discussion, there were a few broad edits made back in March 2022 that removed all individual accounts, including Ky Schevers, Carey Callahan, Walt Heyer, Keira Bell (who is notable given Bell v Tavistock), and others I'm admittedly less familiar with. These other accounts are just as sourceable as Schevers (Bell possibly moreso given the lawsuit) and they've all certainly influenced this subject's landscape via some combination of media portrayal, published books, political action, and/or legal action. So, where is the line drawn for individual accounts? Doesn't make sense to keep re-adding Ky but leave all the others out. Thoughts? IdentifierExpected (talk) 19:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

    Hello IdentifierExpected, thank you for helping clear up my addition! I was against the removal of the individual accounts since I felt they add a lot of necessary depth to the article. I support re-adding all those individual accounts and trying to integrate more scholarly sources. However, I don't believe we should add them as a single individual accounts section since I'll admit that doesn't feel encyclopedic. A few suggestions moving forward to try and get as unbiased/nuanced a view as possible:

    Terminology Section: Include "retransition" or whichever term(s) is/are most appropriate.

    Reasons Subsection: Include the scholarly paper of links to conversion therapy here and some corroborating notable accounts

    Create a Healthcare section to cover detransition related healthcare. This will most likely also include notable personal accounts, methods of detransition, as well as scholarly papers investigating difficulty detransitioning and barriers to detransition.

    Create a Retransition section to cover the accounts and statistics regarding retransition.

    Somehow also include the second transition perspective, ie those who view detransitioning as a continuation of gender exploration rather than undoing a wrong choice. Some of the original individual accounts were like this.

    Reasons section:

    Include mentions of those who don't regret transitioning, viewing it as a chance to explore and happy they did but decided it wasn't for them. Important perspective.

    Generally structure it so we have (in whatever order flows best) accounts/statistics of

    1) too easy transition or a push to transition,

    2) deciding it wasn't for them,

    3) conversion-therapy / ideological detransition

    4) outside bigotry/temporary detransition. We should include state-forced detransition of trans minors (apparently defined as anyone under 25) since that's been happening.

    Cultural and political impact section:

    As many of the notable detransitioners mentioned above are involved politically in transgender healthcare, we can include the accounts/analyses of their roles in that.

    Remove / shorten James Caspian section since it's a back and forth account that doesn't add much, if we want to keep it we could just state the details of the original case and then say his appeals to the various appeals courts were denied on those grounds.

    I'd love to here your (and anyone generally's) thoughts on this! TheTranarchist (talk) 20:55, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

    I agree, IdentifierExpected. The standard for inclusion of individual accounts should be based on some threshold of source coverage, or else include none at all. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:13, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Is there a reason that Ky Schever resuming their transition should not be included, seems like an important point? 24.120.215.202 (talk) 21:49, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I've removed Ky Schever's quotation as this seems to be citing anonymous Twitter accounts. This is final decision.

History: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:4300:aaf0:a8c6:dbb3:39fd:7c5f (talk • contribs) 23:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

IPv6 editor, please see the WP:CONSENSUS policy for how decisions on Wikipedia content are determined. "This is final decision" is not supported by policy, as consensus can change. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:24, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

The last paragraph, starting with "Schever's noted that" is pretty bad. The source is an activist publication and it's not written in NPOV. What does it mean that the lawyer "had connections to"? It seems like a random guilt-by-association thing. If he was an employee or something, then just say that. "Transphobic" is, ultimately, a pejorative, not an objective description of something. But I really I don't think the paragraph should be included at all. The source is weak. It's just a random grievance. If this was the page about that one specific court case, then the minutae of that court case would be relevant. But this is the Detransition page. Does anyone want to make the claim that this paragraph is relevant? Benevolent Prawn (talk) 03:49, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Reddit forum for detransitioners

@Bondegezou you had deleted text summarising what a secondary source (the academic article) says about the Reddit site for detransitioners. It was in this version of the page: Detransition - Wikipedia

Please can you explain your deletion? Many thanks!

AndyGordon (talk) 17:11, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

The text cited a journal article, but that article only had a passing mention to the Reddit site. It was not the focus of the article. It is not clear to me that the edit satisfies WP:DUE requirements.

I don’t object to the thrust of what the text is saying, but better or further sourcing would seem appropriate. The existence of online support groups to support detransitioners seems like a useful point to make, but should we be giving special prominence to one particular Reddit group? Bondegezou (talk) 18:25, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Dear @Bondegezou

Why does it matter in policy that it's only a brief mention of the Reddit group in this article? It's a reliable secondary source, a peer-reviewed journal, and what the professor is reporting are simple facts about when the group was founded, its rough current membership, and a very brief snippet from the About page of the group.

I'd consider all reliable secondary sources that describe groups for detransitioners. It seems an important aspect to mention in this article. That is the only one I'm aware of, apart from Genspect and its Detrans Awareness Day. If there are more let's include them.

The mention of Genspect was just deleted by @TheTranarchist unfortunately. Please @TheTranarchist re-instate. It was a short sentence backed by the Times and Medscape.

Warm regards, Andy AndyGordon (talk) 19:15, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that the section about "Support for detransitioners" was DUE or especially relevant. The framing of the section seemed to suggest that detransition was a category of people that could be supported or opposed, but I don't think this kind of politicization of detrans experience is especially representative of the RS literature (though it is certainly a culture war talking point). Newimpartial (talk) 19:24, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Why does it matter in policy that it's only a brief mention of the Reddit group in this article? See WP:DUE, WP:BALASP, and WP:FALSEBALANCE. While it is verifiable that the source used made a brief mention of that subreddit, how do we weigh that? It is not the only detransition related subreddit on the site, for example there is also /r/actual_detrans, and Mallory Moore, a subject matter expert on anti-trans conspiracy theories, has written about how the subreddit is managed by anti-trans activists, and that for actual support detransitioners should seek out other venues. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:32, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

The membership of an online group open to anyone is hardly a useful statistic. Genspect does not support people who detransition, that is a falsehood they project which we should have no role in helping perpetuate. One look at their article and it's apparent their main focus is attacking trans rights which, as I stated, includes forcing people to detransition against their will (unless stripping transgender people of medicaid coverage and the legal right to transition is somehow supporting detransitioners and completely ethical in some way I'm unaware of). Bottom line, we should treat Genspect with all the credibility of NARTH instead of constantly presenting them as merely having alternative viewpoints or acting like they have any credibility.

Include Genspect's PR stunt if you want, but only with the proper context that they fight for forced detransition and are a medical laughingstock (though that may be too kind, as attacking people's rights isn't that funny when you think about it). TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:33, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Addendum, I've been putting it off too long, but I'll update the page to better reflect the ideological ties between the "ex-gay" and "detrans" movements ideologically and materially. For a little further reference, KY Schevers has written about these ties and helped exposed Genspect's role/ties specifically for Health Liberation Now. Elisa Rae Shupe has similarly spoken out against how her detransition was similar to the ex-gay movement. I'll focus on academic studies first then tie in more notable cases like Schevers'. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

On the section title, how about "Groups that support those who detransition". I agree that "Support for detransition" was clunky and possibly misleading.

From WP:DUE, "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."

Looking at the article, we have a long paragraph about the legal struggle of one person James Caspian, supported by several RSs.

Seems to me that a group with 35,000 users after five years is a significant aspect of detransition. There is just the one RS but our summary was just a couple of lines, not a long paragraph. We could trim a little perhaps but cutting entirely is against WP:DUE. AndyGordon (talk) 19:51, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Seems to me that a group with 35,000 users after five years is a significant aspect of detransition. The number of subscribers don't really provide any meaningful detail on the significance of the subreddit. The question, that can only be answered by looking at our sources, is why is this particular subreddit more noteworthy than any of the others when it comes to detransitioners? That's what you need to demonstrate so that we can figure out if mentioning this subreddit at all, is due and compliant with WP:NPOV. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

What is the support in independent RS for any of this section? Two sentences in an academic article that focuses on other issues? Newimpartial (talk) 20:37, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

• At the very least, I disagree that the existence of a subreddit with 35,000 users is inherently significant or notable - that's not actually a very large number (many subreddits have userbased in the millions, and some fairly obscure or strange ones have userbases in the hundreds of thousands.) There's also no indication anywhere that that user-number... means anything, aside from accounts that were used to follow the discussions there. So the important question is whether the subreddit has significant secondary coverage, which I'm not seeing so far - all I'm finding is passing mentions. --Aquillion (talk) 22:29, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

"Passing mentions" doesn't count towards the sort of notability that governs article creation, but an aspect of a notable topic (as this is) being repeatedly mentioned in RS should be included. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:20, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

So far it only appears to have been mentioned in a single reliable source. The other reference in the proposed edit was to the subreddit itself, Andy has not provided any other sources on this and it does not seem to be discussed elsewhere in the article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:39, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

That's what I thought, but then Aquillion mentioned finding "passing mentions" which could imply there are others. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:32, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I found several more RS that mention the Detrans Subreddit:

Article on Medscape - we should summarise "not all are detransitioners, as the forum is open to those fully detransitioned, partially detransitioned, desisted [those who identified as transgender for a period of time in their youth but no longer do], and questioning their transition"

Another article on Medscape.

Article on National Post.

Kathleen Stock article on Unherd.

Article on Evie.

Article on The Gay UK: "Detrans is a forum that was initially banned for around an hour but was later reinstated. Its purpose is to give those people who detransition a forum to talk about their lives and journies."

So I'd propose to re-instate the text about r/detrans with the backing of these multiple RS, making clear that not all the 35K are detransitioners.

Also, I do find the application of WP:DUE quite subjective. That policy is written in terms of philosophical viewpoints. It does seem to me that a single RS in this case would suffice but in any case there are many. AndyGordon (talk) 07:06, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:DUE is by nature subjective. Your sources are of suspect use in determining DUE as they seem to be a) heavily partisan and thus unreliable and/or b) opinion pieces and/or c) mentioning the forum only in passing and d) not WP:MEDRS. I thus don't believe there is a strong argument to mention the forum as that would unnecessarily advertise/promote the forum. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 10:45, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

We should be trying to minimize how subjective DUE is, as it leads to exclusion based on personal opinion. I think the sourcing is sufficient to include, especially Medscape. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:08, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

That cuts both ways, surely? The subjective nature of WP:DUE weight can lead people to want to include things based on personal opinion as well - based on their personal perception that it is important. In fact, I think the latter is far more common because of the nature of due weight and WP:ONUS; there are some things we must include, and a small number of things we cannot include, but there is a much much wider range of things that could possibly be included or excluded - verifiably true, but not so central to the topic that anyone can reasonably say the article would be incomplete without them. It is only a problem if we include or exclude such things in an unbalanced manner, which is why due weight is relative; it's why I pointed out the passing-mention nature of the coverage. It does matter when weighing aspects of an article for article inclusion - in many places we devote mere sentences to summarize entire articles; how could it be WP:DUE to extract a single mention and give it the same weight? And more specifically, why mention that particular part of those articles, and not other parts? Why rely on these particular sources? Anyway, the answer to that is to look for things of comparable weight in the article that represent different aspects, opinions, or perspectives; then, if we can agree that they actually are of similar weight, we can include or exclude them together, retaining balance and due weight either way. Unless you want to argue that this subreddit is so significant that it falls under the category of something that must be included no matter what - eg. representing, alone, an entire significant perspective or aspect that has no other representation in the article. I don't think that that's likely to be a reasonable argument, though. The existence of a middling-sized subreddit on the topic is clearly not essential to the topic of detransitioning. --Aquillion (talk) 05:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate your comments. I find deciding on WP:DUE one of the hardest policy questions to answer.

I read the whole article and many of the sources. I discovered that this article that we summarize from Journal of Homosexuality sourced its subjects from online detrans communities (mentioned in abstract) with details in the text including r/detrans and also the site www.post-trans.com.

Nobody has complained that anything in the current text is WP:UNDUE. In the page, we have 290 words describing the legal situation of James Caspian. It's supported by 7 RS, 40 words per RS. That includes 120 words supported by a single source, Somerset Live ([55]).

To answer "how could it be WP:DUE to extract a single mention and give it the same weight?", the short answer is because the viewpoint is a simple uncontroversial fact described by 7 RS. (including Journal of Homosexuality, Ethnic and Racial Studies, and Medscape. The 7 RS are the 6 listed in my previous post plus the J of HS.) (I think all 7 are at least as reliable as Somerset Live.)

For the long answer, back to WP:DUE, "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."

The viewpoint to be included is 46 words to the effect that there is a Reddit site for detransitioners.

It's significant in that 7 RS describe the fact

If our coverage of Caspian is "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" then it's proportionate also to have 46 words supported by 7 RS. AndyGordon (talk) 08:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Ultra-belatedly, but just mentioning this because I think it's important to interpreting WP:DUE (and WP:NPOV) - I think that "significant viewpoints" refers to broad, significant strands of thought on aspects of the topic under discussion; it doesn't mean we are required to include every single detail that has WP:RS coverage. So, for example, we could not omit the various perspectives on the frequency of detransition entirely, at least not unless someone can argue that some of those perspectives are in some fashion not prominent in reliable sources. But we're certainly not required to include something like eg. "a subreddit exists somewhere" - in this context it's not a "viewpoint" on the topic. After all, there are innumerable other minor facts in those sources that are not include - the important thing is cover all broad perspectives, not to cover every single individual point or fact brought up in the sources. --Aquillion (talk) 08:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Re: Presumed consensus to include - AndyGordon, there is clearly more opposition than support so far for the inclusion of this mention. How on earth were you able to reach the conclusion that there was consensus to include it? You should know that "consensus = Crossroads + one other editor" is not actually a rule found anywhere in WP policy, shocking as that might be to hear. Newimpartial (talk) 15:22, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I presumed consensus because nobody had challenged my reasoning on 9 September that inclusion was WP:DUE for 5 days.

Please note that I answered your question: "What is the support in independent RS for any of this section? Two sentences in an academic article that focuses on other issues?"

Please do not be sarcastic with me. In good faith I am trying to show that inclusion is due and spent some time giving detailed reasons grounded in policy. We're all trying to make this encyclopaedia better.

But you are right in that in WP:TALKDONTREVERT: "Consensus cannot always be assumed simply because editors stop responding to talk page discussions in which they have already participated." I have learnt something - thank you. AndyGordon (talk) 20:58, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I think it is unsafe to assume that, when multiple interlocutors fail to respond to your comment on Talk, the most likely explanation is that all of them agree.

To make a specific objection to your argument (rather than a purely formal objection to your change): I don't see any evidence that editors, beyond you and Crossroads, agree that the viewpoint is a simple uncontroversial fact described by 7 RS. At least two editors have explicitly objected to the description of the subreddit you have proposed, which implies that the fact is neither simple nor uncontroversial, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 21:59, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Newimpartial, drop it, Andy admitted his mistake and thanked you for pointing it out. No need to drag this on further than needed. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 22:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

One of Lisa Littman's studies reported that when there were about 16,000 people in 2019 on the site a survey estimated that only 1/3 were themselves detransitioners. Personally, I have found much more enlightening civil conversations on r/actual_detrans which labels itself "An alternative to r/detrans that provides support to detransitioners, reidentifiers, retransitioners and questioners in an environment free from gender critical ideology and rhetoric" as opposed to r/detrans which has the rule "Never promote cross-sex hormones or surgery". Generally speaking, I'd say inclusion may be warranted, but we should not present them uncritically as a community of detransitioners without acknowledging their gender critical ties.

Additionally, I don't believe we should have that much on Caspian. He has contributed nothing to the field of research except been given a megaphone to constantly complain he's being silenced as he works with anti-LGBT organizations such as the Christian Legal Centre and Christian Concern. He is a Jungian whose work has been considered unethical at every review board since. While he decries trans activists silencing him, the board had consistent unrelated comments. According to his proposal and the ethics board response, he failed to account for the health and wellbeing of himself and his participants and also failed to adequately provide safeguards for the participants' data. A better summary is here. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I am proposing that we restore the section on "Groups who support..." from this version of the paper Detransition - Wikipedia but with the section renamed to "Groups". I count explicit support from @TheTranarchist @Crossroads and myself. I'm unsure on the current stance of the others who have participated, especially given the new information that the r/detrans subreddit is also described in Littman's published study If @Newimpartial @Sideswipe9th @Aquillion @Ixtal object, let's continue to discuss here. AndyGordon (talk) 09:33, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I think perhaps you've misread what TheTranarchist said. Specifically Generally speaking, I'd say inclusion may be warranted, but we should not present them uncritically as a community of detransitioners without acknowledging their gender critical ties. The proposed version, regardless of how you retitle the section, does not present any critical commentary on the ties between r/detrans and the broader gender-critical/anti-trans movement, nor the point raised by Littman regarding the population of the subreddit being only 1/3 detransitioners in 2019.

As it stands right now, I do not think WP:DUE has been demonstrated. Unless I've missed something, we only have two sources discussing it; two sentences in Littman's 2021 paper relating to the 2019 subreddit survey, and a very brief mention in a 2021 by Vandenbussche as one of the locations where Vandenbussche's survey was advertised. This to me does not demonstrate the prevalence of the subreddit within reliable sources. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:37, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

@TheTranarchist re we should not present them uncritically as a community of detransitioners without acknowledging their gender critical ties. can you propose some text? Are there RS that discuss gender critical ties? Many thanks. AndyGordon (talk) 21:06, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

@AndyGordon: Best thing is not to include them as the reliable sources leave out the full picture. Not to mention, what other subject, especially for medical/socio-political subjects, do we say "they have a reddit group", no matter how well documented it is? And as far as I can tell "well-documented" in this case means

In terms of their anti-trans ties, 1) literally cited by the same academic who's part of Genspect and created ROGD (Ms. "Kids are turning trans because of the internet, trust me, the transphobic parents who believe transgender kids are brainswashed by social media said so" herself). Luckily, Them pointed this out here.

As soon as we look at the support that the subreddit recommends we see them pointing people to Genspect (which at this point you should hopefully be aware does nothing but attack transgender rights). It also recommends the "Gender Care Consumer Advocacy Network", which Leveille helped found and left because of the fact they worked with the Alliance Defending Freedom to push House Bill 454, AKA the "Save Adolescents from Experimentation" act, which attempts to forcibly detransition trans people under 18 in Ohio.

Need I go on? And before you reply WP:OR, are these statements false or not? Their recommended "support groups" push for forced detransition, and while that's OR, it is an objective fact. Considering that, should we paint them as just a reddit group because of a few passing mentions in RS, or leave them out, perhaps until the coverage is more balanced at the minimum?

I see this as a symptom of the larger issue of allowing anti-trans conversion therapists to gain ground and rack up mentions in somewhat-reliable sources and uncritically presenting them, acting like wikipedia exists in some magical apolitical void. What exactly happens when we say "yeah here's a group to support those considering detransition" and point them to a group that points them to organizations pushing forced detransition without so much as a crumb of context? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 13:40, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Should be included since it has been mentioned in RS. Both whether or not a RS "leaves out the full picture" and the speculations you mentioned are WP:OR, while Them.us does not constitute a RS. I see no arguments against inclusion or for a specific way of describing it that differs from the way it has been described in RS. - LilySophie (talk) 16:56, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

AndyGordon, if you want to get consensus I recommend an RFC where it is clearer what change you propose and a wider group of participants gives their opinion. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 10:07, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

After having reviewed this discussion, I agree with the others that support including a mention of it, since it has been named in a reliable source. - LilySophie (talk) 20:51, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Genspect

My change submitted to early, so I'll say it here. To call Genspect an "Organization that supports those who detransition" as opposed to "An organization that believes in forced detransition" or something similar is blatant whitewashing. If we are going to mention Genspect, the story does not start nor end at them holding a single PR day, as they are known to be part of an astro-turfed and unscientific hate campaign.

For reference, including them there is about as insensitive and tone deaf as listing NARTH as an "organization that supports those who question their sexuality" or "organization that supports those who don't think they're LGBT". TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 11:57, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

OK, how about "Groups" or "Groups for those who detransition" as the title of the section? I hope that would be more neutral from your point of view. AndyGordon (talk) 20:49, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

By that reasoning, neutrally speaking, NARTH and Exodus International are "groups for those who question their sexuality" or "groups for those who realize they're straight".

I don't know what better way to explain the difference between supporting detransitioners and attacking trans people in the name of supporting detransitioners. A group that advocates conversion therapy and forced detransition against people's will is a not a support group for "those who detransition" any more than any other kind of conversion therapy is "support for those who change their sexuality".

I wouldn't object to them being described in the ex-gay section, describing them as a scientifically unaccredited hate group known for attacking transgender rights, spreading medical misinformation, and pushing to detransition people against their will (all verified critical context). Then toss in that little PR stunt of theirs after. But not this whitewashing, I legitimately can't tell if you're sea-lioning or really see no issue uncritically presenting them in such an out of context manner.

Speaking sincerely, do you really not see the issue I'm raising? On a human level, can you not recognize that there is a world of difference between advocating (and legally pushing) for people to be detransitioned against their will, and supporting detransitioned people, and understand why conflating the two is honestly deeply insulting? Would you include a one off description of NARTH or Exodus in such uncritical terms? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we should include Genspect here. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:18, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I think the fact that there was a detrans awareness day should be included in the Detransition page. I had been thinking that group would cover both the r/detrans community and the awareness day, but I wasn't thinking of Genspect itself as a detrans group primarily. But, I can see that it's not good wording, and apologies. Perhaps the detrans awareness day should sit in the "Cultural and political impact" section. AndyGordon (talk) 10:28, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Sincerely, thank you for recognizing that.

My issue with the inclusion of it generally is that any organization can have an X awareness day. Some reliable sources can even report on the fact they hosted X awareness day. However, unless X awareness day is a generally recognized day, one that's not tied only to the organization, I don't understand why it should be considered notable enough to include.

To be clear, if there was a widely recognized independent detransitioner awareness day, that could be merited for inclusion. But I see no evidence this event has a life out of Genspect and isn't a PR stunt. If we are to include it, and I maintain I'm not sure we should, the only way to fairly present that would have to provide a description of Genspect, namely as an organization known for opposing transgender rights, spreading medical misinformation, and advocating/fighting for forced detransition. The cultural and political impact section would be a better place for it than it's own section. Also, only two sources note the event, one of which is known for it's negative coverage of trans people. See here and here.

Overall, I think we should be careful to not spread PR for organizations that oppose transgender rights without making it explicitly clear what they do. Back to analogy, if NARTH held a bi-curious-now-straight awareness day covered in only two sources, it may be notable, but we would have to make clear NARTH is more concerned with conversion therapy than truly supporting or advocating the needs of those who realized they were straight. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:41, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Not doing your argument any favors with that obviously biased name. 2605:A601:AC3D:E100:41B6:9878:BC09:36D6 (talk) 19:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I actually think it's a cool username 😎. What don't do arguments any favors are ad hominem commentaries like yours. –Daveout(talk) 20:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Pressure in Iran due to laws against homosexuality

This BBC article discusses a topic I was already familiar with, and *might* be relevant in small part here, or maybe not. The issue is this: homosexuality is illegal in Iran, but transgender identification is not. The upshot is, that some gay people feel pressure to transition; not optimal, to say the least. Some start on that path, then change their mind. In my way of thinking, this is not really "detransition" in the classical sense, at least with respect to identity (they were never trans in the first place); but if we consider "detransition" as broad enough to include detransition with respect to medical (primarily, probably) detransition, then perhaps it is relevant here. The BBC article is not the first about this topic, it's just what I happened to see recently; there's plenty of information about it. Just wanted to spark a conversation about this, to see if folks think that this article could include mention of the Iranian situation, which is an anomalous one and I believe unique in the world, or not. Mathglot (talk) 09:41, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I would say so; as long as we contextualize it properly as the sources do, it's a form of detransition, so it can be mentioned. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:45, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: LGBTQ Reproductive Health

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2022 and 21 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Makayaking6 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Makayaking6 (talk) 14:37, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

2022 The Lancet study

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanchi/article/PIIS2352-4642(22)00254-1/fulltext --Lewisiscrazy (talk) 17:58, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

a new article from Reuters

Reuters released this article, might be of use.

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-transyouth-outcomes/ Kerubis (talk) 14:40, 24 December 2022 (UTC)