Talk:Stella O'Malley

References

@Hodt1 thank you for your edits on the page. It would be great if you could replace the inlined links with citations to secondary sources, eg, newspaper articles that mention or review the TV shows etc, rather than simply links to her website. Worth a read of the policy page Wikipedia:SELFPUB. Her website is a self-published primary source. It's better to base the article on Wikipedia:Secondary sources that are Wikipedia:Independent of her. Thanks again! AndyGordon (talk) 11:16, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Astro-turfing

In regards to this edit which was removed: In an report titled "Biased Science: The Texas and Alabama Measures Criminalizing Medical Treatment for Transgender Children and Adolescents Rely on Inaccurate and Misleading Scientific Statements" published by physicians and psychologists who work with trans teens in response to attempts by legislators in Alabama and Texas to ban gender affirming care for minors, the researchers labelled Genspect a member of a network of organizations who oppose gender-affirming care, feature biased and unscientific content against medical consensus, and whose core members frequently serve on boards opposing gender-affirming treatment including the Society for Evidence Based Gender Medicine (SEGM), Gender Identity Challenge (GENID), Gender Health Query, Rethink Identity Medicine Ethics (ReIME), Sex Matters, Gender Exploratory Therapy Association (GETA), Gender Dysphoria Working Group, and the Institute for Comprehensive Gender Dysphoria Research (ICGDR).

And this reason for removal: removing paragraph based on a non-peer-reviewed academic article. We can't consider it a reliable source because it's not reviewed. Yes, the article in the Advocate is a secondary source that mentions some of what is said in the academic article, but the Advocate piece says nothing about O'Malley, or Genspect. So there's nothing to include here. Hope that's clear

WP:SCHOLARSHIP says "Reliable scholarship – Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." (Emphasis added)

Stella O'Malley is a Clinical Advisor to SEGM. If you check you can easily confirm 7 out of their 14 clinical advisors have positions in Genspect. The review makes the point the groups listed share core members. There was a more thorough breakdown of this in the healthliberationnow source, but it takes 5 minutes to go to the websites for these organizations, and notice they share a large number of board members. While this should be put as fact, I had no problem putting it in the format of "the report stated." But there are sufficient grounds to include it.

For more evidence to that effect, in an article funded by a SEGM grant made by members who share membership in Genspect and SEGM, Genspect is listed as one of many groups united by their objection to gender affirming care. For evidence of this, they link to Genspects helpful groups page, where most if not all of those organizations mentioned in the edit are listed (and as stated the membership claim takes 5 minutes to verify)

The original report was was a review of the anti-trans legislation and fake science it brought up. While not peer reviewed, neither was the decision to criminalize trans healthcare in those states. The report is a secondary source, as a group of scientists from an accredited institution published an evidenced response to the justification provided for the legislation, which was picked up on by news outlets. This is not solely a medical source, it is situated in a political context. Multiple sources, not solely the Advocate, referred to the report and it's situation and impact. They reported the fact the report stated the science is biased and these groups push misinformation (also corroborating the simple fact that the legislation was unscientific and flat out wrong about many things such as whether it's standard policy to allow those under 18 to surgically transition).

To not include this information does a huge disservice to our readers, by completely leaving out the fact researchers in a nationally circulated and discussed report have pointed out these anti-trans groups share the same message and membership. As stated, I understand the need to present it in Wikivoice and describe these things as a statement of the report rather than fact (even if they are), but there is no reason to exclude them all together.

References

Reply to Astro-turfing

Hi @Tranarchist thanks for your message. The reason not to include those sentences abstracted from the SSRN preprint is because it's not published; it's "posted on 16 May 2022" and has "Preprint not peer reviewed" on every page. A Preprint is a version of an article preceding publication. Hence it's not published by a "well-regarded academic press".

If her own site says she is a member of SEGM, I think we can state that within policy. But assembling ourselves and counting the set of members would count as WP:OR.

If a secondary source quotes part of the unpublished report then we could use what the secondary source says. But as I said, the Advocate doesn't say anything about Genspect or O'Malley. Maybe others do but we'd need to find them.

Once the paper is published, we should reconsider the situation.

For now, please remove the paragraph. Remember WP:BLP: "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources." Many thanks. AndyGordon (talk) 06:32, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

@AndyGordon, While not published in a traditional academic source, it was published and widely remarked on. We have to take context into account, we are not quoting a medical finding. We are saying a statement of fact, that in a report authored by scientists and physicians to retort anti-trans healthcare bans in Texas and Alabama (which means it was more pressing than an academic wait-time would allow), Genspect was listed as a anti-trans organization sharing members. For the record, there is a self-published source that does a very good job analyzing this as well, we just can't include it.

From WP:BLPPRIMARY: Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy

Other acceptable sources mentioned the report, and cited it's criticisms of the legislation and groups backing it. They usually referenced SEGM (of which O'Malley is also a member), but since the report's claims were considered notable by many other organizations, we can augment it to say Genspect was listed as well (since it was). In addition to the Advocate, these sources here, here, and here, non-exhaustively, cited the report as expert opinion and made reference to it.

From WP:BLPGROUP: This policy does not normally apply to material about corporations, companies, or other entities regarded as legal persons, though any such material must be written in accordance with other content policies. The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis.

We should be looking at this on a complex individual basis, since the claim is about a group not a person.

From WP:SCHOLARSHIP A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.

The language used clearly attributes this to the source without stating it as fact. The fact that this report included Genspect is undeniable and easily verifiable. The fact it was published in response to anti-trans legislation is also easily verifiable (by secondary sources).

From WP:SELFPUB: 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.

The authors of the report are for the most part all physicians and psychologists who work with transgender children. To cite their credentials:

- Susan D. Boulware, M.D., Associate Professor of Clinical Pediatrics (Endocrinology), Yale School of Medicine; Director Clinical Operations, Section of Pediatric Endocrinology; Medical Director, Yale Pediatric Gender Program

- Rebecca Kamody, PhD (Clinical Psychology), Assistant Professor, Yale School of Medicine: Child Study Center, Pediatrics, and Psychiatry

- Laura Kuper PhD (Psychology), ABPP, Assistant Professor in Psychiatry, University of Texas Southwestern, Child & Adolescent Psychologist Children's Medical Center Dallas

- Meredithe McNamara, M.D., M.S., FAAP, Assistant Professor of Pediatrics (Adolescent Medicine), Yale School of Medicine

- Christy Olezeski, PhD (Clinical Psychology), Associate Professor of Psychiatry, Yale Child Study Center and Pediatrics, Yale School of Medicine; Director, Yale Pediatric Gender Program

- Nathalie Szilagyi, M.D., Instructor, Yale Child Study Center, Yale Gender Program; Director, Greenwich Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Greenwich Center for Gender & Sexuality

- Anne Alstott, J.D., Jacquin D. Bierman Professor, Yale Law School; Professor, Yale Child Study Center

In short, there is ample reason and WP policy to justify including this. I am fine with the hedging our bets with attribution, ie "the report says x" rather than saying "x" in wikivoice, but at the end of the day a bunch of experts involved with trans healthcare published a rebuttal to Alabama and Texas's anti-trans laws. The report was widely circulated and commented on, and the fact that one of the organizations it listed was Genspect is undeniable. We should be looking at this as an individual case rather than without any nuance, and the fact it is a pre-print doesn't mean much if we understand the key thing is that collection of experts published a timely rebuttal to current legislation which was picked up on by numerous news outlets. According to all the Wiki-policies I stated above, we have every reason to include this. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:31, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Also, @AndyGordon, @Ballystrahan, are we able to include this since they are a community interest company? Not sure how WP inclusion works in regards to their statements so checking with y'all first. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:18, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Dear @TheTranarchist, all the Advocate says about SEGM is this: "Additionally, Paxton cites a biased group, the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine, which is not a recognized scientific association, and a “discredited claim” that peer pressure is leading teens to identify as transgender, the authors say." I've put a summary of that into the article. It's not clear to me that the discredited claim is from SEGM. AndyGordon (talk) 10:17, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm deleting the paragraph based purely on the unpublished preprint discussed above.

The crux are the claims: "the researchers labelled Genspect a member of a network of organizations who oppose gender-affirming care, feature biased and unscientific content against medical consensus, and whose core members frequently serve on boards opposing gender-affirming treatment including SEGM..."

These are contentious claims that need to be peer-reviewed. So as per Wikipedia:Blp we cannot state them: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source."

Regarding WP:SELFPUB, you had quoted:

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.

The two sentences following this quote are:

"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. Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer."

The unpublished piece is indeed mentioned by four news articles, but none of them mention these claims, apart from the Advocate piece, and I've summarised what it says in a new separate sentence.

Remember Wikipedia:DUE, that we summarise the viewpoints in the reliable sources. AndyGordon (talk) 10:37, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Also, am deleting sentence: "In a tweet quoted by the article, Genspect was described as being funded by anti-trans voices and O'Malley was criticised for comparing being transgender to being paedophiliac, linking to an article published by Health Liberation Now titled "Leaked audio confirms Genspect director as anti-trans conversion therapist targeting youth."

Again, re WP:BLP and WP:DUE we need to be very careful about sources, and cannot give so much weight to the opinion of an unnamed Twitter user. PinkNews just includes the tweet in a long list that responded to the NYT article, but does not itself mention Genspect or O'Malley. AndyGordon (talk) 11:08, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

PS To clarify, PinkNews doesn't itself make use of what's said about Genspect in this tweet. AndyGordon (talk) 11:11, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

If 6 scientists and a law professor had written exactly the same report for an opinion letter to some newspaper, would we be able to cite it? If the other sources all referred to it exactly the same way, not mentioning Genspect but mentioning SEGM, would we at all be able to say that the opinion letter itself had stated they were connected?

What they said is a contentious claim. It's completely true, but I'll agree it hasn't gone through academic peer-review and doesn't fit WP's guidelines to state as fact. However, the fact that they made the claim is WP:BLUESKY. Are we challenging that the report itself said that? Also, a copy was published on the website of Yale's school of medicine, which I would hope is considered a fairly independent and reliable source. Furthermore, the claim is not about O'Malley specifically, but about Genspect, an organization and not a living person.

I refer to my citations of WP:BLPPRIMARY, which states that if a primary source is discussed in secondary sources, it can be used to augment the secondary source. In addition, WP:SELFPUB, which says we should consider who is saying something, ie a group of 6 experts who work with trans people on the daily. Finally, my citation of WP:BLPGROUP which states the BLP policy does not apply to groups and organizations by default.

In short, if A says "B, C, and D", and multiple reviews note that "A said B", does WP policy really support that we can say "A says B", but not give the context A says "B, C, and D"? To me, WP seems pretty clear we are able to augment the reference to give the context. If we're going to be stuck in a back and forth like this, I recommend we post the discussion in the LGBT wikiproject and let the community sort it out from there. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, you've added a paragraph quoting the Trans Safety Network off their website. See https://transsafety.network/about/ They have been cited quite a few times by PinkNews and other publications, and been described as a grassroots monitoring group or "a group that tracks the anti-trans hate movement in the UK".As far as I can see, this is essentially user-generated content, a blogpost on a group website, see Wikipedia:USERGENERATED. I'm sure you mean well but this content is unacceptable on Wikipedia, so please remove that paragraph. AndyGordon (talk) 20:06, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I re-added it because it is a registered community interest company recognized by the UK government as for the purpose of reporting on transgender rights, not some random blog. We already cite them in other places on Wikipedia. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 14:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Dear @TheTranarchist, to your question:

In short, if A says "B, C, and D", and multiple reviews note that "A said B", does WP policy really support that we can say "A says B", but not give the context A says "B, C, and D"?

Yes, because A is an unreliable primary source - an unrefereed preprint - but there are multiple reliable secondary sources that mention the existence of A, and so we can summarise what they say. This is the essence of verifiability - ideally articles consist of summaries of the secondary sources on a topic. A source mentioning A doesn't make A in itself reliable - it's still an unreliable primary source. AndyGordon (talk) 20:12, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

@Jdbrook please see this discussion. AndyGordon (talk) 20:56, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

@AndyGordonThank you, this is really helpful.

Jdbrook talk 21:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

This is misrepresenting my argument, not to mention the sources and Wikipedia policy. I am by no means saying treat A as a source passed down from god and immutably true. I am saying wikipedia says to give context. You acknowledge that multiple sources mention A. Wikipedia does not say, only use them to discuss A. Please find me a single place it does. Wikipedia says you can use A to supplement them. Please explain why that somehow no longer applies.

As I have pointed out multiple times and you seem to be overlooking, Wikipedia has every right to give the context to the claims. In your argument, Wikipedia should deliberately misrepresent the claims of A.

Putting that aside for a moment, I'm going to re-add who, ie which researchers, said what about her where. When I added that back, I did not add the connection between all those organizations, which is what you seem to have an objection to. The way I updated it relies entirely on what was said in the Advocate, ie a group of researchers who work with trans teens on the daily said this in response to anti-trans bills citing SEGM. There is no excuse whatsoever not to add that. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 14:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Fair enough, I see what you've written depends only on the Advocate. AndyGordon (talk) 06:53, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Ensuring the accuracy of this article

Hi @Tranarchist, thanks for your contributions to this page. The current difficulties I see with this page are weasel words (see WP:WEASEL), the continued use of a non-peer-reviewed article as a central source (see Astro-turfing section below) and slippage between source material and the content on the page (see section on Genspect and SEGM). The introduction probably also lacks balance when it comes to the most notable facts to display there (see WP:WEIGHT). These issues are especially important given that this is a biography of a living person (see WP:BLP). Can we work towards ensure these difficulties are overcome in a way that avoids edit warring (see WP:EW)?

Thanks, --Ballystrahan (talk) 07:31, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

@Ballystrahan, thank you for helping clearing up the page! I also wish to avoid edit warring which is why I moved discussion to the talk page. I made some more edits last night in light of your comments. In regards to the non-peer-reviewed article, I just wrote a more in-depth explanation of its context and the relevant wikipolicy above. For the introduction, I agree we should re-consider the weight. However, I feel we have different views on that lol. Personally, from my research of her, she is more notable for her position in Genspect and statements against conversion therapy bans than any of the writing she did (especially recently). If you do a brief check for her and the keyword transgender ("Stella O'Malley" AND "transgender")/("Stella O'Malley"), the results are 130/729 on google news and 13/22 on google scholar. If you refine the google news search to mentions since January 1, 2020, the result is 49/120. For weasel words, could you point out the words in question so we can discuss and update them as appropriate? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:45, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

@Ballystrahan @TheTranarchist

This page about Stella O'Malley seems to currently be very unbalanced--a bunch of negative quotations about her. What are the requirements for statements about someone in order for them to be repeated in Wikipedia?

Here are a bunch of comments from the page:

"which people said was equivalent to conversion therapy"

" organisation has been described as ideologically affiliated with TERFism, Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria, and the Alliance Defending Freedom"

"what they characterised as advocating conversion therapy."

" O'Malley was characterised as an anti-trans conversion therapy advocate whose views were misinformation"

"The documentary was criticised for uneven coverage, attempting to prove that being transgender can be a phase, and O'Malley's conclusion that transgender children "are lost and are being led".

"In a tweet quoted by the article, Genspect was described as being funded by anti-trans voices"

Italics are mine. These are all descriptions in various articles by various groups, is that all one needs in order to put something into Wikipedia about a person?

also, Wikipedia quotes a tweet: "linking to an article published by Health Liberation Now titled "Leaked audio confirms Genspect director as anti-trans conversion therapist targeting youth"."

And there's an accusation about all the speakers at a cancelled conference, of which O'Malley was supposed to be one, listed here, as if all the accusations about all the people at the meeting are relevant for her: " In particular, opposing inclusion of protections for trans people under the UK conversion therapy ban, intervening in a court case in Arizona in defense of the state's Medicaid ban on trans healthcare, and arguing gender-affirming care for transgender youth is "abusive"."

Is it appropriate to just repeat statements from any publication for Wikipedia pages?

As far as balance, for starters, here are some other responses to her documentary, which were not on the Wikipedia page, but easily available on the page about the documentary, http://www.stellaomalley.com/trans-kids-time-to-talk. Why are none listed here, if one is going to just repeat statements which have appeared in print somewhere?

This is a ***must**** see. ‘ We must do no harm’ says fearless @stellaomalley3 - Prof Michele Moore , Editor of Transgender Children and Young People

Thanks for this very thoughtful document....Finally, people are talking - Dr Heather Brunksell-Evans, Sociologist & Spokesperson for FiLIA

I’ve seen this documentary and it’s a great addition to the debate. Shows how what a generation ago was “tomboy” gender nonconformity now puts children (especially girls) on a trajectory towards lifelong medication.-Janice Turner, Journalist & Columnist for The Times

The point that O’Malley wants to make is not that medicine is wrong, but that we need to be sure we aren’t causing unnecessary damage:-Rosie Kinchen 'The Times'

https://www.ft.com/content/d1c4c06c-e6a2-11e8-8a85-04b8afea6ea3 etc.

Also, some of these statements have a lot bigger story behind them, for instance, this one: " TD Mick Barry raised issue with O'Malley's invitation to the conference" --why did the wikipedia article not follow up on the rest of this? There is a description here https://genspect.org/the-timeline-of-a-blunder/ and more of the context here: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trans-quote-wrong-says-woman-defamed-by-td-mick-barry-fdcmx099k --Stella O'Malley has asked for a retraction, but this was not reported, just the original claim which prompted the defamation claim by O'Malley.

Thanks. Jdbrook talk 10:13, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Tranarchist and @Jdbrook, thanks for your edits and comments. Tranarchist has certainly substantiated parts of the article that were lacking (i.e. reduced the occurrence of phrases like "has been described as"). However, this article is still not encyclopedic. Most of the article is now focused on reported criticism of her work and organisations associated with her rather than her work itself. Approximately 90 of the 140 word introduction is devoted to such criticisms while about 900 of the 1200 words in the body of the article are devoted to them. When I read a biography, my objectives are approximately in the following order 1) about the person 2) what they do/did 3) what other people say positively 4) what people say negatively (the last two approximately with the same weight). This article is mostly category 4. There are still weasel words (e.g. "which people said was equivalent to"). It's also quite difficult to read due to the frequent use of the passive voice and long sentences. One sentence is five rows long on my screen and fills a whole paragraph.

Cheers, Ballystrahan (talk) 20:06, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining, it seems a lot more is needed for 1,2, 3 indeed!

Jdbrook talk 20:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I have tried to add some discussion about O'Malley's work on exploratory therapy. I hope I put it in the right place. I normally edit medical articles and don't know how the biographical ones work. Apologies if I got it wrong. Thanks.

Jdbrook talk 21:52, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to help out with this article. I expanded the section on O'Malley's published books. I also took some of the information about criticism of her writing, which had been put in the introduction, and moved it into the body of the article.

In the flagged section, it looks like there is a large volume of text devoted to criticism of organizations that she is associated with. About how many lines of a Wikipedia article of this length should be devoted to media criticism of an organization, where the subject of the article is closely involved in the organization, but the criticism is not directly related to the subject or their role at the org? I know there has been some back and forth here, so I'd like to make sure I'm meeting majority opinion in order to avoid back-and-forth editing.

Since she is the founder of Genspect, I could see that it would make sense to have perhaps a paragraph of content about Genspect. It could primarily describe basic facts such as how the organization's stated purpose and when it was founded, and then a sentence or two of both praise and criticism. Do you think that would be appropriate?

Thank you! Sharon-Knowledge (talk) 04:04, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Anne Sheehan Gilbert (talk) 07:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)I have added the following to give a clear account of her approach "Stella O' Malley supports a "soft psychological rational approach, a hasten, slowly do no harm approach ...........the medical intervention route". I have deleted this post as it refers to another person Twitter comment/not correctly referenced "In February 2020, O'Malley tweeted she was compiling a list of Irish gender-critical therapists, which people said was equivalent to conversion therapy") ⋮

@Tranarchist @AndyGordon

Trying to understand why Trans Safety Network is a reliable source. I see it is registered as a social enterprise group working for the public good.

Thanks. Jdbrook talk 15:04, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

TSN is a private company w undisclosed funding and anonymous board. "Our goal is to use exposure of anti-trans hate networks and organised harm campaigns to reduce or mitigate the impact of these". SEGM appears judged a hate group, but a verifiable source is missing The self declared ambition to "mitigate impact" is in conflict with WP:NEUPV. The description "an anti-trans psychiatric and sociological think tank" is an opinion, defined as WP:QS. Elements in the paragraph are at a significant risk of bias. KoenigHall (talk) 22:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC).

If you look at this link you can learn all about their not so anonymous board and operating contract. I'm going to say anti-trans hate is something people should, hopefully WP:BLUESKY, try to mitigate, is a position that shouldn't be considered inherently oppositional to a NPOV. Maybe that's just me. Happy pride. Also, the fact the British government recognized them as a non-profit organization dedicated to helping trans people through journalistic investigation gives weight to the fact we should include them (note, I sourced their statements to them). Also, this is not the only source describing the organization as anti-trans. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 03:09, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

We have a couple of sentences based on TSN as a primary source.

According to WP:BLP, bios should be based on secondary sources. If say PinkNews had quoted TSN's views on Stella O'Malley, then probably they could be included, suitably attributed.

Moreover, TSN is just not a reliable source. It is not a WP:NOTABLE organisation in the Wikipedia sense, as far as I can see. Nobody is describing them as a publisher. As I said above, it is essentially a group blog, see WP:USERGENERATED, and thus unacceptable as a source.

As far as I know, Wikipedia policy doesn't recognise being a non-profit or a company, in itself, as making a source reliable.

For these reasons we should immediately delete this paragraph. AndyGordon (talk) 07:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

False claims by Genspect

@Newimpartial: @Koenighall: Why has a medical review article (secondary) saying "The “transition or suicide” narrative falsely implies that transition will prevent suicides. " been overridden by an article from Open Democracy? (In addition, Genspect also has a similar claim from quoting Dr. Edwards-Leeper, head of the child and adolescent committee for WPATH, a different source, in a podcast described here.) Given the secondary review, this statement is unsupported: "the group also makes false claims that there is "no evidence showing that social or medical transition reduces the risk of suicide among young people with gender dysphoria".[32] " Calling the statement agreeing with the medical secondary "false claims," needs back up. Tracing the Open Democracy article, it goes to two primaries, one which finds: "Findings support a relationship between access to GAHT and lower rates of depression and suicidality among transgender and nonbinary youth." (It is not even clear which way causation goes, this study cannot determine). The other is also a primary. This is a medical statement (medical intervention outcomes), so quoting Open Democracy for it, which eventually leads to primaries, is insufficient for inclusion. Its conflict with a secondary makes the inclusion inappropriate as well. Thanks. Jdbrook talk 14:40, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: do you have the consensus view of transition and suicide risk at hand, by any chance? I have the feeling you have pulled together those sources before, not so long ago.

And Jdbrook, I don't think there is any dispute that Genspect's claim of "no evidence showing that social or medical transition reduces the risk of suicide among young people with gender dysphoria" conflicts with the mainstream MEDRS view that the evidence of this is quite clear. The existence of FRINGE sources disputing this doesn't change the predominant view. Newimpartial (talk) 15:34, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Then the claim can stay out too. "OpenDemocracy" is not a MEDRS and this is a medical claim. Simple as that. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

KoenigHall's original argument, if I remember correctly, was that the specific wording "false claim" was subject to MEDRS - that the MEDRS might have found the opposite of what Genspect said, but unless they used the words "false claim" that we could not use that phrase. This argument, if I understood it correctly, is not based on MEDRS, WP:V or any other guideline.

If anyone besides jdbrook is actually arguing that the statement by Genspect is correct in this matter, or that it is backed by non-FRINGE sources, please say so and I'm sure we can dredge up the relevant scientific consensus. But edits I have seen from you, Crossroads, and from KoenigHall amount to stonewalling and wikilawyering with no actual basis in policy.

And concerning this edit and its summary: (1) like other corvids, I can normally count to three, and (2) if you are making what I take to be KoenigHall's original argument - that we need a MEDRS using the phrase "false claim", that seems to me to be a nonsensical position. Of course, if you need to be convinced of that, it should be a straightforward RfC. Newimpartial (talk) 18:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I have produced a secondary saying that "The “transition or suicide” narrative falsely implies that transition will prevent suicides. "

The quotation from "Open Democracy," based upon one of its primaries, disagrees, but my understanding is that the secondary carries more weight as this is a medical issue.

Thanks. Jdbrook talk 20:01, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Are you denying that Stephen Levine et al. represent a position in this field to which WP:FRINGE applies? Newimpartial (talk) 20:03, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes I have that. Current consensus view is that gender affirming care, which includes social and medical transition, improves mental health in trans and non-binary youth and correspondingly decreases the risk of suicidality. Unfortunately there is no meta-analysis or review papers on this currently published that I'm aware of, the closest we have to that at present is the draft WPATH 8 SoC child and adolescent chapters which we can't cite directly.

Sources for children: Edwards-Leeper, et al, Chen, et al, Olson, et al

Sources for teens: Costa, et al, Becker-Hebley, et al, Kuper, et al, Achille, et al, Carmichael, et al, de Vries, et al (2014), de Vries, et al (2011), Tordoff, et al

The paper OpenDemocracy use to support the wording "false claim" is the paper by Tordoff. It is however one among a great many that show the same or similar findings. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:08, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Note, I posted this reply before reading the paper by Levine. I'm reading that now and will have thoughts on it shortly. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:10, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I've had a chance to read through the Levine paper now. I would not characterise it as a review article. Of the sources I've provided above, it cites only four; Carmichael, both de Vries, and Olson. As such it seems to be missing a significant body of literature published that is not based on the Dutch study.

Where it does cite the four, it does so in a way not relevant to the claim on mental health outcomes. For mental health outcomes, Carmichael's data is incomplete, it recorded only a subset of criteria and did not measure that at all for the third follow-up. For both de Vries papers, Levine is strongly dismissive of them, which makes sense in context as Levine believes that study was of a questionable basis, one that does not seem to be supported in other literature. Finally the Olson paper is only mentioned briefly in passing in the following quotation: Further, it has become increasingly common to socially transition children before puberty (Olson, Durwood, DeMeules, & McLaughlin, 2016), even though this was explicitly discouraged by the Dutch protocol at the time (de Vries & Cohen-Kettenis, 2012). Aside from that it makes no commentary at all on the findings of Olson's work.

Based on what I know of Levine's work and opinions, I would characterise this paper as ideological in nature as he seemingly is either unaware of or unwilling to acknowledge the substantial body of work that is separate from the Dutch studies which he is criticising. When contrasted against the draft WPATH 8 SoC, as well as what I know of the broader research, I would characterise this as a fringe opinion that is not shared by the majority of his peers. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Sideswipe9th.

Does anyone (besides jdbrook) disagree with this assessment of the literature? If so, why? Newimpartial (talk) 20:34, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

With regards to the content of the article, and bearing in mind both WP:SYNTH and WP:SYNTHNOT I believe the OpenDemocracy article in combination with the paper they cite (Tordoff) would meet PAG in this instance. We could also add one of any of the other sources, which are representative of research in this topic unlike Levine's paper, though I believe those are not necessary. Any more than one would put us into WP:CITEOVERKILL territory. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Jdbrook, what do you think about this? We aren't supposed to be doing that much of our own analysis to say that some set of primary sources is right and a review article is wrong. Per WP:MEDPRI, Primary sources should not be cited with intent of "debunking", contradicting, or countering conclusions made by secondary sources. It would be better to leave out Genspect's claim and commentary thereon and just link to our article on GD in children somewhere. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not jdbrook, but it seems to me that Genspect's misleading pronouncements on this topic are highly relevant to this article and should be discussed clearly as such. Do you disagree, Crossroads? If so, what is the basis of your disagreement: (1) maybe gensect isn't wrong, or (2) their statemenrs are clearly false, but this isn't relevant to the present article for some reason? Or some other objection? Newimpartial (talk) 04:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@Crossroads: I agree, I don't see why it is appropriate for we editors to decide that some primaries are correct and that a review article is wrong.(Also, no mention has been made of those articles which find other conclusions, e.g., this one, for example, or the secondary evidence reviews such as those by the UK NICE/NHS for puberty blockers and hormones and by Sweden finding the evidence for mental health outcomes is low certainty, very low certainty, low quality, etc.)

The following are not primary sources, but if Edwards-Leeper's work, mentioned above, really says medical intervention prevents suicide, maybe someone should tell her, as she and Dr. Erica Anderson are saying this is not established:

"As far as I know, there are no studies that say that if we don’t start these kids immediately on hormones when they say they want them that they are going to commit suicide. So that is misguided. “ (link to Dr. Edwards-Leeper interview here)

and

"A handful of studies supposedly showing the suicide risk of gender minority youth who are not supported are also not entirely conclusive. The term “support,” for instance, is defined differently across studies, and it is never defined as “starting medical interventions.” Supporting trans youth may include using the correct name/pronouns or allowing the young person to present in a way that aligns with their affirmed gender (e.g., clothing, hairstyle). These studies also show correlations between teen-transition hurdles and suicidality, but not causal relationships. Suicide is a horrifying outcome for too many gender-diverse youth, but its specter should not be used to push forward unrelated medical treatment without professional care or attention for each patient." essay by Edwards-Leeper and Anderson.

So it seems that Edwards-Leeper, Anderson and Levine et al (the secondary) agree on the research regarding suicide risk.

Thanks. Jdbrook talk 09:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

So, Jdbrook: are you saying that these individual opinions are right, the professional bodies are wrong, and so we shouldn't reflect the positions of the latter in deciding whether the "false claim" statement reflects the MEDRS? Or have I misinterpreted your statement somehow? Newimpartial (talk) 10:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

The secondary has not been demonstrated to be either FRINGE or incorrect.

It is being argued that primaries should be used to overrule it, but most of the primaries being claimed to say otherwise have also been rigorously evaluated in secondaries and found to be inadequate to estimate outcomes, i.e., to estimate what the treatments will do. Regarding suicide, or mental health, or other outcomes.

These secondaries (the review and the evidence reviews) are all consistent, as are the anecdotal statements from the two mainstream US clinicians.

Thanks. Jdbrook talk 10:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)