Talk:Transgender health care misinformation

mention of ROGD in the lead.

At the moment the mention of Rapid onset gender dysphoria in the lead doesn't make it extremely clear that it's a concept with little to no evidence supporting it. Perhaps changing it from "that transgender youth are suffering from [ROGD] " we write " That a new subtype of gender dysphoria is spread through social contagion (often called rapid onset gender dysphoria)."

I'm very happy for other ideas just at the moment there isn't any suggestion about how scientifically sound the hypothesis of ROGD is, just that it's misleading or false to say that transgender youth are affected by it (consider the example of calling the claim that "transgender youth are suffering from hearing damage" a false claim, this says nothing about hearing damage being real, just that transgender youth don't suffer from it). LunaHasArrived (talk) 13:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I think we should mention that it has no scientific backing and has been heavily, heavily scrutinised by medical professionals. We also should not say that a new subtype of gender dysphoria is spread through social contagion because 1 the sources don't say that and 2 that's just not the case at all. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 23:39, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

My suggested sentence goes in a list of false/misleading claims so should be false/misleading. My point with the hearing damage example is that the current text says nothing about ROGD being false or misleading. LunaHasArrived (talk) 09:43, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh excuse me I misunderstood you, yes we should probably look for some reliable sources about that maybe some of the ones used in the ROGD article itself. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 02:05, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Also the difference between ROGD and hearing damage is that ROGD is not at all recognised as a real medical term or subtype of gender dysphoria. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 23:40, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Purpose of this article

This article is quite misleading and mostly just consists of calling anything transgender activists object to "disinformation" without basis (sound familiar?). For example it is very difficult to know what the rate of transition regret is because many clinicians do not properly follow up with their patients, and therefore the best we can do is estimate. This article also attacks ROGD as disinformation despite there not being definitive evidence for or against it. The overall impression I get is that is that the article is an "end run" around failed attempts to insert this sort of framing into the articles on the relevant subjects, which is a violation of WP:POVFORK. Partofthemachine (talk) 07:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

1. ) Here are dozens of major medical organizations explicitly saying The proliferation of misinformation regarding ROGD is also infiltrating policy decisions. Currently, there are over 100 bills under consideration in legislative bodies across the country that seek to limit the rights of transgender adolescents, many of which are predicated on the unsupported claims advanced by ROGD. Thus, even though ROGD is not a diagnostic classification or subtype in either the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) or the International Classification of Diseases (ICD), nor is it under consideration for inclusion in future editions, it is critical to address the misinformation regarding ROGD now.[1]
   • This article also attacks ROGD as disinformation despite there not being definitive evidence for or against it. - claiming trans kids are suffering from a disease there is no evidence exists is misinformation. I can say I think being trans is caused by a magical fairy named McScruffles. There is no evidence it's true, but there's no evidence it's not true, must it be taken seriously? By your logic, anybody who asks for evidence is ignoring the fact there's no evidence it's wrong...
2. ) The overall impression I get is that is that the article is an "end run" around failed attempts to insert this sort of framing into the articles on the relevant subjects - articles on the relevant subjects are framed the same way. The "end run" is trying to re-litigate those being fringe here - less than two months ago you tried to remove "scientifically unsupported" from the lead of ROGD and failed because only one editor agreed, while 11 opposed.[2]

Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:05, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I have to agree with @Partofthemachine. In the case of young children, society has an obligation to protect them from ill-informed choices, that's why minors cannot purchase alcohol, tobacco, or cigarettes until they are adults. When children reach the age of decision (21 in most states) then they can make decisions about their lives. Allowing underage children to be subjected to gender affirming surgery and self-mutilation in order to spare them from purported suffering due to ROGD goes contrary to the obligations of society and the laws in most states. There are many gay and trans activists which support lowering the age of consent based on some of the same rationale. Most of these trans articles on wikipedia are POV forks of the same subject. This one seems to enshrine and demonize any disagreement to the trans lifestyle. This article should be merged into others on this subject. There are just too many articles on this subject and I agree with everything Partofthemachine postulated. KindHorta (talk) 04:04, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Medical organizations section is misleading

@LunaHasArrived: The author of the cited source misleadingly suggests that these organizations all agree with the activist viewpoint on this issue, which is false. While these organizations all oppose unilateral bans or age restrictions on gender medicine (as do I), many of them, especially those outside of the United States, advocate for a more cautious approach to gender-affirming care. Partofthemachine (talk) 23:41, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

That source (whilst older) seems to say that medical institutions in all 4 countries seem to still provide (and therefore endorse) gender affirming care, whilst we probably shouldn't cite it (medical care is outside of politicos usual expertise and it is older than the academic sources we have). The source doesn't seem to back up what you're saying about misleading and an activist approach to healthcare. LunaHasArrived (talk) 00:03, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

You tried to change every major medical organization endorses gender-affirming care to most major medical organization oppose bans on gender-affirming care[3]

From that article you linked, While Europeans are debating who should get care and when, only Russia has banned the practice. The reassessment of standards in some European countries has aimed to tighten eligibility for gender-affirming care, but also sought to expand research studies including minors.

The fact that some organizations in Europe disagree with how specifically to provide gender-affirming care does not mean they do not endorse gender-affirming care. Every medical organization says "we treat X with Y" is not mutually exclusive with some disagree over "how do we provide Y". Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 00:03, 12 December 2024 (UTC)