Talk:Genspect

Notability?

@TheTranarchist what's the case that Genspect meets the notability guidelines. See WP:ORG. Thanks. AndyGordon (talk) 15:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:SIRS and the open-democracy article, along with the rest of the sources should cover it I think. I'm going to touch up the article and ask in the LGBTQ wikiproject for a review shortly. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Dear @TheTranarchist, I think the OpenDemocracy source meets the four criteria at WP:SIRS (although I'm not completely sure of the case for OpenDemocracy being reliable). But which other sources meet all four? There are brief mentions of GenSpect but I wonder about "significant coverage". AndyGordon (talk) 18:05, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@AndyGordon: I believe the GCN sources also meet the requirement. I just re-arranged it and am about to touch it up with additions made to O'Malley's page. After, I'll notify the relevant wikiprojects and ask for a review. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@TheTranarchist all the GCN Ireland piece says is "She is also a founder of Genspect, an organisation that supports parents who don’t affirm their Transgender children, espousing the pseudoscientific ‘condition’ known as Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD), condemned by WPATH, the American Psychiatric Association and American Psychological Association ." that is one sentence in a long piece, and hardly counts as significant coverage. My view is that's its too early for an article on GenSpect, as there aren't multiple reliable sources that give it significant coverage. But if there are more let's discuss. AndyGordon (talk) 18:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@AndyGordon: For SIRE we also have the LGBTQ Nation piece and the NYT piece which discusses them and analyzes them.

I believe with the sources and article state we currently have overall we meet the criteria Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization. and WP:NGO. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Also wanted to add, they were covered here TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Anti-Trans

@KoenigHall: Multiple independent organizations looking at them directly described them as anti-trans. All of their campaigning against trans rights is listed and described in detail. Finally, thanks for bringing it to my attention again, I included a link to the substack article referenced. Do you think we should quote the part where they say a trans member on the board is a tactic to protect them against accusations of transphobia? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:52, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

The "looking at them directly" is not a substitute for a WP:RS or a secondary. Clearly a large number of public figures/ organisations can have conflicts of interest. If you bring as argument a "large" number of organisations who, presumably, have as a common trait to actively oppose any questioning of the "pro-affirmative" model of care, then your claim of "independent" is disingenuous.

To present this transphobic (read the implication in the link you give) criticism of Genspect is libelous since you mention 8 living persons associated with Genspect.

The evaluation that having trans members is a "tactic" is irrelevant. If the organisation has trans members on the board (I didn't know they do) then obviously the presumption must be they are not transphobic and all the more reason you need to bring WP:RS that they are.

The campaigning against "trans rights" is your judgement and also not WP:RS. It may be equally judged they are mainly motivated to safeguard young people (the explicit target of the organisation) with gender dysphoria and comorbid mental health issues (as characterized for significant numbers in articles and systematic reviews, also from the pioneering advocates of "The Dutch protocol") from malpractice, which is quite a different thing to campaining against "Trans Rights", and likely also the reason why there are adult trans persons on the board.

The structure of this article is also below par and not according to Wikipedia intentions. The article starts with a negative criticism of Genspect, instead of describing it's motives and functions. Likewise, the History starts with a libelous negative opinion (not even on the level of a WP:QS, this is an unjustified opinion of another source with conflicts of interest) and obviously not intended to be even close to a "History".or even background.

This whole article needs to be "cleaned up" and structured (in a non-biased way) to conform to the Wkipedia encyclopadic intentions. Please do. KoenigHall (talk) 23:16, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Open Democracy, LGBTQ Nation, and Gay Community News in fact describe them as "anti-trans ideologues" with "ties to conversion therapy", an "anti-trans 'gender critical' organization", and "an organisation that supports parents who don’t affirm their Transgender children, espousing the pseudoscientific ‘condition’ known as [ROGD]" respectively.

In regards to a common trait to actively oppose any questioning of the "pro-affirmative" model of care sources? The shadowy all powerful trans lobby sounds great on paper but proving it exists runs into the small issue of reality. Fun fact, opposing conversion therapy bans, forcing schools to disallow social transition, arguing trans people should be denied medical rights until 25, and campaigning for schools to out students to parents against their will are all pretty objectively evil things which they have done. I feel WP:BLUESKY should apply.

Maybe I should have used the word strategy instead of tactic. After all, Genspect published a newsletter titled "It's Strategy People", not "It's Tactics People", which stated the trans people on their board are to protect them from accusations of transphobia since other orgs they respect didn't and couldn't get anywhere for that. There's tokenism, then there's blatant tokenism.

Campaigning against trans rights is a statement of fact based on the sources, both the facts presented and analyses given. Transitioning is a right. Not being outed against your will is a right. Not being subject to conversion therapy is a right. Your name and pronouns being used is a right. Opposing those is opposing trans rights.

The article needs work and I'm working on it, but the article does not need apologism for actions which no reliable source justify in the slightest. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 02:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I think Swannieriv and KoenigHall are likely the same editor, given the hyper-focus on this article and other trans subjects. If the editing and reverts continue, this should be reported. —Kbabej (talk) 03:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@Transanarchist @Kbabej , No I (@KoenigHall) am not the same person as @Swannieriv and I don't know who that editor is. I think one person is not allowed to have two identities as editors of WIKIPEDIA (even if somehow it would be technically possible). Kbabej, Please don't direct suspicion or derogatory insinuations towards other editors.

"opposing conversion therapy bans, forcing schools to disallow social transition, arguing trans people should be denied medical rights until 25, and campaigning for schools to out students to parents against their will"

In my view each of these statements are affected by non-neutral POV and biased. It does not carry the discussion of consensus forward.

E.g. "opposing conversion therapy bans" , is disingenuous since the opposition has been to Bills, as presented, which would exclude alternative treatments such as recommended by Annelou de Vries (in Pediatrics 2020), by Erica Andersen, Laura Edwards-Leaper, by the Finnish Government appointed expert directives (2020), The UK NHS Cass review (2022), The Swedish Government National Board of Health and Welfare directives. Even Endocr Soc in their disclaimer to gudileines 2017 state that they don't intend to imply that alternative treatments would be less valid than their guideline. Conversion therapy Bills have been notoriously vague in differentiation for age, mental health, sexuality vs identity, and both in the UK and in Norway the original Bills have been withdrawn (perhaps temporraily) after hearing responses from professional asociations.

(Similarly, nobody is forcing schools (?). "should be denied medical rights until 25" , "out students" are all referencing the arguments and intentions out of any context).

Again, anti-Transgender is redirected to "Transphobia" and linked to in the first line, it is up to the editors who include this to present WP:RS of it's validity. WP:Bluesky is, as my detailed response to the first of your examples demonstrates, not applicable since no-one would accuse the persons and organisations I name to be Transphobic, neither the trans persons who are (by your words, is this correct?) on the board and members of Genspect.

From your explanation I conclude your designation Transphobic (=anti-transgender) is invalid WP:OR and, as I stated, it can have consequences (e.g. for Facebook administrators) and is therefore libelous and should be immediately removed.

As you have noted already more than three editors (more, since I have been thanked for my edits by a few who don't join the discussion on TALK) agree with my position on the opening line of the Genspect page. To continue with reversing the removal of the attribute, in view of this lack of consensus, is contrary to WIKIPEIDA editing directives (WP:Editwarring). I would appreciate if you changed it yourself, possibly instead including your criticisms, with pertinent discussion and WP:RS, in a separate section.

In the meantime I thank you for agreeing to work to improve(a better structure?) the page. KoenigHall (talk) 12:51, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

1) When you remove "suppression of gender identity" from conversion therapy bans (and don't bother to try and differentiate between supposedly ok therapy and conversion therapy), it's painfully obvious conversion therapy for trans people is not protected. To be clear, instead of bothering to argue faith based conversion therapy is different than talk based or anything, they objected to the notion trans people undergo conversion therapy at all. Also check out the conversion therapy article for the bit where most health organizations agree conversion therapy applies to trans people. Absolutely nothing POV at all about saying that is anti-trans.

2) From their own "accomplishments" since open democracy doesn't seem enough for you: "ensuring that children are not socially transitioned against their parents’ will in school or in any other context. In one case — the Welsh district of Rhondda Cynon Taf — our intervention resulted in the entire local authority area revisiting its “Trans Toolkit”, protecting potentially thousands of kids from social transition in the school setting." So, are you saying they don't blatantly attack student's rights to transition and argue parents should know if a kid is trans are no matter the view of their kid?

3) From their positions page (apart from the "full solidarity" for Our Duty which is even more explicit): "The current state of the research indicates that most people do not fully mature until 25, in terms of cognitive function and the development of the personality; for this reason, we have grave qualms about anyone below this age making the decision to transition." If you believe there is nothing hateful about believing trans people should be denied hormones until 25, frankly go ahead. But first, that is unscientific, second, cruel, and third you should put your money where your mouth is and try forcibly transitioning yourself until 25. If you can't know you're trans surely you also can't know you're cis until then right? Or are only trans people expected to be told others should choose their hormones against their will for years into adulthood. Fun fact, no major medical association agrees with this, because it's objectively terrible.

All the reliable sources point out things everyone agrees they've done, and points out they're transphobic. Apart from BlueSky, the reliable sources are clear on what Genspect is. There is nothing libelous, false, or OR about calling them transphobic. Everything I have in the article is cited. Your opinion is not a reliable source. Neither is Genspect's marketing, see WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:TINFOILHAT.

Since I have better things to do than try and explain the full history, if you want to know more about this topic in general (ie objectively terrible things happening to trans people), maybe try reading the article on Leelah Alcorn. It's got conversion therapy, parents avoiding their daughter trying to socially transition in school without their consent, refusing to use her name/pronouns, and trying to stop her medically transitioning. Her story is what Genspect's policies look like in action behind the marketing. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@Tranarchist, again, your explanations are virtually the definition of WP:OR for the claim that Genspect is transphobic. Please reconsider your conclusion that "we have grave qualms about anyone below this age making the decision" is equivalent to Genspect demanding prohibition

This is WP:OR and not correct. "making the decision" implies "although clearly can", and your conclusion that Genspect thus "denies medical rights" is eqyually false.

I note you don't deny the impossible designation of transphobic to to all the prominent organisations and WPATH leaders that is implicit in your indirect OR argumentation. '

You also don't deny that there are a number of editors who agree with my view, which means you have no consensus for your editing.

Please respect the WIKIPEDIA requirement for consensus and NEUPOV. when editing the Gensoect page. KoenigHall (talk) 19:14, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I refer you to my original quotes from the sources describing Genspect as anti-trans, for the reasons listed. I'm pointing out that the positions that you say Genspect doesn't support and supposedly aren't anti-trans are ones they do in fact support and have been described as anti-trans. This is at best a very faulty misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy and at worst disinegnous.

The "full solidarity" bit for an Our Duty calling for an "immediate moratorium" disagrees with you.

If you want my views and sources for who else is transphobic, ask somewhere else and ask for specifics. This is not the place.

Also, you, crossroads, and maybe Swannieriv, are not an overwhelming consensus.

Do Open Democracy, LGBTQ Nation, and Gay Community News not describe Genspect as transphobic/anti-trans for the reasons listed? Stop ignoring the sources and claiming it's OR to use them. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:54, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

'Do they not'? Actually, they don't. Not in their own voice. OpenDemocracy does not call them anti-trans in its own voice; read it carefully. Gay Community News only uses the term in a quote, and that's when referring to SEGM, not Genspect. LGBTQ Nation likewise only contains it as an attributed claim, not in its own voice. Also worth noting is this in-depth New York Times article that never endorses the claim. If no sources directly in their own voice claim it is anti-trans, how can we possibly say it in Wikivoice? How is that not a neutrality violation? Can anyone really say they think an RfC would greenlight such obvious going beyond what the sources say and WP:SYNTH?

One of the editors reverting it back in claimed it was not covered by WP:LABEL. This is belied by the fact that anti-transgender redirects to transphobia, which is listed at LABEL.

Per WP:ONUS, you need a consensus for the claim in order to have it in the article. It is not our job to get a consensus to remove. It fails WP:Verifiability as a direct claim and instead should only be present as an attributed POV. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Re: This is belied by the fact that anti-transgender redirects to transphobia, which is listed at LABEL. - Wikipedia is not a reliable source, Crossroads, as you really ought to know. Newimpartial (talk) 11:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

One can't claim it's exempt while allowing the term to redirect to a term that is specifically listed at LABEL. If you feel that's incorrect, then you should list it at WP:RfD. Are you going to do that? Crossroads ^-talk- 05:02, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

The sources seem to make Genspect being anti-trans pretty clear, but here we are:

In Open Democracy, the title includes speakers’ anti-trans links exposed (ie they say they have anti-trans links, which were exposed, in their own voice). Further, they say According to emails seen by openDemocracy, the proposed schedule of speakers included individuals with close links to proponents of anti-trans conversion therapies (Referring to actions taken by Genspect, such as opposing conversion therapy bans). In a section titled Links to anti-trans advocacy, they say Genspect’s website boasts of working relationships with proponents of anti-trans conversion therapy including Our Duty (which is undeniably anti-trans and Genspect stands "in full solidarity with"). They also repeatedly point out that Genspect makes false claims about trans healthcare.

To illustrate the point, lets consider an article which states X organization's "homophobic links were exposed" in the title. In a section titled "Links to homophobic advocacy", it cites them arguing against gay marriage, arguing against bans on gay conversion therapy, arguing against the right of children to be openly gay in schools (as well as their right not to be outed to their parents), and arguing against protections against homophobic discrimination in schools. For this hypothetical article, entirely centered around homophobia from organization X, would you argue that the article "does not call them homophobic in their own voice"? Or would you consider that a pretty pointless hill to die on that seems to ignore the whole point of the article and its very title?

For the NYT article, it doesn't actually do a deep dive into Genspect's actions like the others. Not to mention, it seems the parents call being trans a cult and points out they don't call trans kids "mentally ill" as a "tactic", neither of which strike me as particulary trans friendly.

For a cherry on top, Gay Community News describes Genspect as an organisation that supports parents who don’t affirm their transgender children in an article about how trans youth face serious harmful difficulty transitioning. Not to mention, they point out Genspect is know for espousing the pseudoscientific ‘condition’ known as Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD), condemned by WPATH, the American Psychiatric Association and American Psychological Association. Nothing anti-trans about not affirming trans kids and spreading pseudoscience.

In conclusion, the sources that actually look into Genspect characterize them as anti-trans (with the receipts to prove it). In their own voice, to boot. I suggest a thorough re-reading of them, since they seem to describe them as anti-trans pseudoscience pushers. I honestly think a RFC would consider them anti-trans, based on all their fairly blatantly anti-trans actions of theirs and descriptions of them as such in reliable sources. Since we do have sources which describe them as anti-trans, can you provide any reliable sources which analyze them in-depth and come away with the conclusion that they aren't actually transphobic? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 00:52, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Pinging @AndyGordon:, @Crossroads:, @KoenigHall:, @Kbabej:, @Newimpartial:, @Swannieriv:, and @RoxySaunders: for past interest in this page's discussions. Can we come to a consensus about whether or not Genspect is anti-transgender? More accurately, whether the reliable sources describe them as such. At the moment, it seems 4-4 whether Genspect is anti-trans. If not, we should open an RFC. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:52, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Just for convenience, could you link the various sources in support of anti-transgender in a single reply please? Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:56, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Of course. Only two sources did an analysis of Genspect as opposed to simply quoting them or their representatives.

From Open Democracy: the title is NHS pulls trans health conference after speakers’ anti-trans links exposed. Further, they say According to emails seen by openDemocracy, the proposed schedule of speakers included individuals with close links to proponents of anti-trans conversion therapies (Referring to actions taken by Genspect such as opposing conversion therapy bans). In a section titled Links to anti-trans advocacy, they say Genspect’s website boasts of working relationships with proponents of anti-trans conversion therapy including Our Duty. They also repeatedly point out that Genspect makes false claims about trans healthcare such as advocating ROGD.

Gay Community News describes Genspect as an organisation that supports parents who don’t affirm their transgender children in an article about how trans youth face serious harmful difficulty transitioning. Not to mention, they point out Genspect is know for espousing the pseudoscientific concept of ROGD and link to this statement from the majority of professional psychological organizations which says that ROGD has no basis in evidence, should not be used as a classification, and is being used to attack transgender rights.

While there isn't a consensus on relying on them directly, their descriptions of Genspect appear in reliable sources and thus in the article so I'm including here a reference to Trans Safety Network. Similarly, while we can't cite them directly, the Irish TD who had spoken against Stella O'Malley's characterizations of trans people relied on the following article from Health Liberation Now which quotes O'Malley at length. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

UPDATE TO OP: PinkNews describes the NYT as platforming gender-critical groups, vile rhetoric and anti-trans parents, stated Several people online blasted the New York Times for publishing the “dangerous” anti-trans article (anti-trans in their own words), quoted a tweet stating There are a lot of other issues with Genspect, like being funded by extremely anti-trans voices, or its director comparing being transgender to being pedophilic. which linked to sources and quotes from O'Malley here, and referred to the article's inclusion of such widely-reviled groups.

In addition, here is a report published by researchers at Yale in response to anti-trans legislation which states [SEGM's] 14 core members are a small group of repeat players in anti-trans activities ... The core members of SEGM frequently serve together on the boards of other organizations that oppose gender-affirming treatment and, like SEGM, feature biased and unscientific content. These include Genspect, Gender Identity Challenge (GENID), Gender Health Query, Rethink Identity Medicine Ethics, Sex Matters, Gender Exploratory Therapy Team, Gender Dysphoria Working Group, and the Institute for Comprehensive Gender Dysphoria Research. On Talk:Stella O'Malley, I argued that statement should be mentioned and appropriately sourced, since while the report was a pre-print it was a widely covered statement in response to legislation. I believe it is verifiable and due weight that they stated that of Genspect (The issue was whether we could state that since news agencies that picked up on it tended to focus on criticisms of SEGM and did not directly report that included Genspect). Currently, we only mention their criticisms of SEGM, however due to 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 I believe we can include the mention, properly attributed of course. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:32, 13 July 2022 (UTC)TheTranarchist

No, but I'd be happy to remove the wikilink. Newimpartial (talk) 05:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

There is an obvious problem here. @thetranarchrist is quite happy to cite any and every poor quality resource (gay community news) and misrepresenting the genesis of Its strategy people as proof of something. But even quotes directly from Littman are not adequate. I tend to agree that it is too early for an article on Genspect. I note the origins of the listing were entirely an attempt to discredit the organisation. Not a helpful start. Swannieriv (talk) 19:30, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Why isn't Gay Community News a reliable source? Honest question, because I can't fathom an answer that doesn't rely on homophobia and the presumption that an LGBT magazine can't be objective. Please provide a reason why it's unreliable and prove me wrong. Also, for the record, the New York Times was the one that mentioned Genspect's strategy of not calling trans people "deluded". Quotes from Littman are indeed not adequate as per WP:MEDRS (see the above statement from the majority of psychological health organizations). Also, do you have a source for the origins of the listing were entirely an attempt to discredit the organisation? Please see WP:ASPERSIONS.

Moving from stones to glass houses in terms of "poor quality resources" and your own penchant for them (I suppose as the "thetranarchrist" it's best to say "He who is without sin can cast the first stone"). Statements from Genspect's website are not independent nor due weight (they border on promotional, ie here: Genspect's rapid growth represents a growing concern about the nature of gender medicine for children and young people and a lack of evidence of its benefits.). Citing sources unrelated to Genspect is original research to attempt to skew the representation of the medical consensus. Finally, ROGD is indeed discredited per medical consensus (no matter what actually unreliable sources such as Quillete say). Humbly noting my edits and sources have generally been considered reliable in the WP community, and yours have been mostly reverted. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Antitrans is a negative epithet and not a useful descriptor. Genspect's origins are based in growing concerns that affirmative approaches to claims of trans identity are leading to overdiagnosis. This assessment is endorsed in MSM by 3 Wpath clinicians, and by the reviews to gender medicine in multiple jurisdictions.listed elsewhere in the talk. Swannieriv (talk) 20:18, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

• The version as currently written seems like a good and currently working compromise, though the description of who calls them anti-trans could perhaps be improved. X-Editor helped write that adjustment to the lead in large part and they did a good job. Does anyone deny that the sources used to support "anti-trans" are WP:BIASEDSOURCES? What I mean by that is not that being pro-LGBT is biased, but rather they are biased in the specific and relevant sense that they endorse the activist position regarding gender transition medical treatment in children that there should be minimal gatekeeping, which according to the New York Times, a more clearly mainstream source, is actually highly contentious.
• Here are some relevant quotes from that article: When WPATH released the draft of the SOC8 for public comment, Leibowitz and his co-authors braced for the inevitable conservative attack....But Leibowitz and his co-authors also faced fury from providers and activists within the transgender world. And: ...a few European countries that had some liberal practices concerning young people seeking medication imposed new limits recently. In February, the national health board in Sweden limited access to puberty suppressants and hormones before the age of 18 to “exceptional cases” and in research settings. The shift followed a Swedish public-television documentary that claimed doctors tried to hide spinal damage in a young patient whose bone density wasn’t adequately monitored. Finland has similarly restricted access. One month after Sweden’s decision, the National Academy of Medicine in France called for “great medical caution” regarding treatment for young people, citing health risks (including for bone density and fertility) and noting the unexplained rise in trans-identified teenagers.
• Both sides in that debate have people who just want what is best for teenagers - that people who benefit from transition get it and that those who would not are not given something harmful. So, when it comes to one side of that debate referring to Genspect as outright "anti-trans", we should take pause and give that in-text attribution, per BIASEDSOURCES. And this is all the more the case when none of the sources are directly and specifically calling them anti-trans in their own voice, which we need per WP:V. Why do none of them straightforwardly say something like "the anti-trans group Genspect"? If they don't, why would we? Regarding OpenDemocracy, for example, Genspect weren't the only people at that conference.
• Bottom line, I think the current version is a workable compromise and the best way to go - encyclopedically covering the topic but not taking POV sides. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:29, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Swannieriv (talk) 12:25, 12 July 2022 (UTC)I agree that it is a decent compromise.

  I indeed deny that. From WP:BIASEDSOURCES: However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. The "activist position" is supported by medical consensus. Thus, if the sources are indeed biased, they are biased in favor of truth. For example, the American Psychiatric Association's statement that Due to the dynamic nature of puberty development, lack of gender-affirming interventions (i.e. social, psychological, and medical) is not a neutral decision; youth often experience worsening dysphoria and negative impact on mental health as the incongruent and unwanted puberty progresses. Trans-affirming treatment, such as the use of puberty suppression, is associated with the relief of emotional distress, and notable gains in psychosocial and emotional development, in trans and gender diverse youth" is fairly straightforward. Looking at conversion therapy, the majority of health organizations consider attempts to change someones gender to be conversion therapy. Therefore, the "activist position" is arguing against laws that include gender in conversion therapy. There is no reputable medical source or organization which argues that conversion therapy bans should not include gender. Would you argue otherwise? Same for Genspect's support for banning transition under 25, do any reputable medical orgs actually say people under 25 shouldn't be able to transition? One side is supported by medical consensus, one side actively argues against it without due cause, and to try and present that situation as anything else does a disservice to our readers. Due weight and all that.

  Regarding open democracy and Genspect, I refer you to my earlier analogy/question which was left unaddressed: If an article titled "homophobic links exposed" details organization X's partnerships with people who campaign against conversion therapy in a section titled "links to homophobic conversion therapy" as well the right of students to be out in schools and not be discriminated against, would you argue that it is a radical and unverifiable departure from the source and its meaning to describe organization X as homophobic because organization Y was also mentioned in the article? If your argument is that it would distort the source as they never say "homophobic organization X", there's no reason not to include the sourced and verifiable statement "Organization X advocates homophobic policies and partners with homophobic organizations."

  Therefore, as a compromise, I'd support stating in the lead that Genspect partners with anti-trans orgs and pushes anti-trans policies instead of saying "Genspect is an anti-transgender organization" or the like. The distinction apparently matters. Thoughts? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:22, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

  As pointed out by @Newimpartial WIKIPEDIA is not WP:RS, (in the context of the WP redirection of anti-Trans to Transphobia). A fundamental problem here is the definition of "anti-Trans" as used sweepingly in the sources, although not defined anywhere. I think this creates confusion.

  What is "anti-Trans" to some is anything that opines to limit the "Trans rights", but "Trans rights" is also not defined clearly, in particular for minors. If these are defined it may be revealed that they are superseded by other rights an, e.g., The UN conventions (ratified by all Western countries) for children's rights (again, eg., the right to the best possible health care).

  Early in this thread I listed paradoxes related to the equating of anti-Trams to Transphobia early.

  Perhaps one should agree on what anti-Trans is (briefly, e.g. in a parenthesis on this page) or first put it in as a brief discussion (subheading topic) on the WP "Tranphobia" page, and then refer to that entry, before using it here.

  Giving a high priority to "safeguarding" may be considered anti-Trans by some, not by others, and Transphobic by some, but there again, not by others. KoenigHall (talk) 22:31, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

  So much FRINGE in that comment. However, returning to TheTranarchist's previous statement, if the "partnering with" formulation is closer to the BALANCE of the sources, then that is how the text should read. Newimpartial (talk) 22:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

'Trans' vs. 'Transgender'

I think the wording for 'trans' should be expanded to 'transgender', per MOS. As this is written, even the lead sentence seems like a magazine article rather than an encyclopedic entry with the use of "anti-trans". --Kbabej (talk) 21:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and updated the slang from 'trans' to 'transgender'. --Kbabej (talk) 21:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that label is too strident and POV in tone. As far as I can tell its support comes from WP:BIASEDSOURCES, so it shouldn't appear in wikivoice. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

"Discredited"

The use of the word "discredited" in the lead seems to be an opinion. In fact, the word only appears on the ROGD page once in an op-ed. To definitively call it "discredited" seems to be giving an op-ed a lot of weight. Are there any sources (besides the op-ed) that are calling the RODG discredited? --Kbabej (talk) 21:12, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

From Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria: It has never been recognized by any major professional association as a valid mental health diagnosis, and its use has been discouraged by the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, and other medical organizations due to a lack of reputable scientific evidence for the concept TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:16, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@TheTranarchist: Yes, I read that, but the term "discredited" seems contentious. The ROGD doesn't use that term, except for an op-ed. Is orgs discouraging the term the same as "discredited"? Not in my mind. I understand its usage, and I'm only suggesting the edit because anti-transgender advocacy organization articles get very contentious, and I can see editors using that as an example of this turning into a POV article. If that term doesn't have RS backing it up, I don't think it's a wise move to include it if the long-term goal is to have as little edit warring as possible on this page. Just my two cents. --Kbabej (talk) 21:37, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

​​In my mind, discredited (would disproven be better?) is synonymous with a lack of reputable scientific evidence for the concept. I understand that someone might accuse it of being POV, but I don't think it actually is. In other words, describing discredited theories as such is only "controversial" because pseudoscience advocates DONTLIKEIT, not because a controversy actually exists among RS's. I don't mind preventative measures but I think we can leave it as-is until we actually see more evidence of the edit warring you're concerned about, in which case we should see if these warriors raise any valid concerns. Adding an inline citation to WPATH might help. Best wishes, RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk · contribs) 22:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Kbabej. And 'not proven' and 'discouraged for diagnostic use' is not the same thing as the stronger 'discredited'. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

The key fact about ROGD is that the authoritative professional bodies deny that it is a real thing. Article language that communicated this is helpful to our readers; article language that obscures this is unhelpful. Newimpartial (talk) 15:19, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Saying "discredited" on top of "condemned" is ax-grindey, terrible writing. At least "condemned" says who's rejecting it - "discredited" just looks like someone's opinion and is totally redundant. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. Something that is false but is regarded as harmless can be discredited but not condemned by anyone. Something that people reject but that is not actually disproven may be condemned but not discredited. ROGD does not fall into either of these categories. Newimpartial (talk) 04:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Swannieriv (talk) 22:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC) The issue of discredited is a bit of a red herring. Littman has never claimed that ROGD is a clinical diagnosis. She regards it as a descriptive term that is neutral. See https://quillette.com/2019/03/19/an-interview-with-lisa-littman-who-coined-the-term-rapid-onset-gender-dysphoria/ Her subjects - parents - had observed claims of being transgender occuring in friendship groups with specifically girls announcing a trans identity in rapid succession. As such it is unusual but has similarities with other instances of conditions of social contgion amongst young women such as anorexia, false memory syndrome and self-harm by cutting. This aspect is of continuing interest. See https://pitt.substack.com/p/headline-when-a-quarter-of-the-class for example.

So I would prefer that the text say that ROGD is not intended to be a medical term citing the article I have listed above. Swannieriv (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

That first link isn't a reliable source for medical information, and I doubt it's a RS at all. The second one is a substack! Newimpartial (talk) 22:18, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

The first is an interview with the woman at the centre of the issue in her own words. It does not have to be a medical journal. Clearly this is an issue of controversy. If there is to be a page then tgat controversy and the differing views need the best possible context.

I an new here and have not so far found the acronym list for wikipedia editors so don't understand your rs comment. I am not suggesting the second piece is authoritative. Again it is descriptive context to put ROGD in context. Swannieriv (talk) 01:49, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Here is a brief but to-the-point statement signed by the multiple psychological organizations. Long story short, there is no evidence that ROGD exists and claims that it does are frequently used to push harmful anti-trans legislation. In the Quillete piece, Littman states "what I have described could represent a new type of gender dysphoria." One of these is medical consensus, one is someone who doesn't seem to understand one can be closeted and trans. While it is not a diagnostic classification, it has been used and advocated by many as such. The best possible context does not mean present each view on equal footing, fringe theories are to be clearly noted as such. The overwhelming medical consensus is that ROGD is, being kind as possible, harmful ideological pseudo-science.

WP:RS stands for reliable sources. Quillete is not one of them. Self-published substack blogs aren't even close to reliable or due weight, as anyone can write anything. For example, the source you provided (which is also a Genspect front so not especially independent or reliable) is an opinion piece that doesn't provide a single source for its fear-mongering claims and statements which are completely divorced from reality (ie comparing gender dysphoria to anorexia, defending the need to protect the poor innocent children from the horror of being told that transgender people exist, conflating having sex with cross-sex hormones for whatever reason, and the not at all made up fact that minors are getting gender affirming surgeries). TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 04:04, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Your language is a bit inflammatory to be received in good faith I feel. And qite full of unsunstantiated claims about what people you appear to disagree with think.

Well in order to explain why Genspect exists are we left only with the claim that people who are involved are bigotted and anti-transgender? That does little service to a people's encyclopedia.

In response to your point about RS the advice says that what is authoritative depends on the context. Explaining what a term means should surely accept an interview with the person who coined the terms as an authoritative source for the purpose of confirming her own assessment of the term. But here is a Sunday Times article where it is acknowledged that Littman 'coined the term" and describes what was found in her research. This may or may not be the last word. This is a contested issue after all. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trans-teenagers-have-become-an-experiment-87vn5m8fw. And as far as the comparison to anorexia there is theorising that, like anorexia and cutting claiming a gender identity can be a maladaptive response to stress. https://doi.org/10.1080/00332925.2017.1350804 This has been followed up with solid research data from Australia showing that children who claim a transgender identity have many times more adverse childhood events than other kids. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.582688/full There is also a growing sense that inclusion and diversity education is leading children to identify as transgender https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10816881/Critics-accuse-Swindon-Council-promoting-damaging-transgender-ideology-schools.html and this claim is supported even by WPATH specialists. Erica Anderson a former WPATH psychaitrist and a transgender person has said in the LA Times “A fair number of kids are getting into it because it’s trendy,” To flatly say there couldn’t be any social influence in formation of gender identity flies in the face of reality,” Anderson said. “Teenagers influence each other.” Swannieriv (talk) 09:06, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

None of these are reliable sources for medical information except for the Kozlowska primary study, which doesn't mention ROGD. The Daily Mail is deprecated on WP, and the Marchiano piece is in a "Journal of Jungian Thought" (not even a journal of Jungian therapy, and definitely not MEDRS). I'm not seeing much there, there. Newimpartial (talk) 11:46, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

That is exactly how I'd describe Genspect, as basically everything they argue in favor of is based on psuedoscience and extremely harmful to trans people. As supported by the reliable sources. If you believe there's nothing harmful about trying to stop people under 25 transitioning, or stop bans on conversion therapy, then surely you being forcibly transitioned against your will and given a shrink who insists that's the right course of action is fine too right? Or is it only humane when trans people don't have a say over our bodies?

As pointed out earlier, just because Littman keeps saying it's a real phenomenon doesn't make it one (especially since the medical consensus is that no evidence for it has ever been found). It has all the scientific rigor and obliviousness to human nature as Drapetomania. Can you find a single reputable medical organization who's official position is that gender dysphoria is like anorexia? Apart from Jungian quackery or the long disproved concept that being transgender is a result of trauma (this was actually the medical consensus decades ago until they realized how wrong and baseless it is, like when they used to say homosexuality was a result of trauma). Also, correlation does not imply causation. Letting kids be out in schools is not magically turning them gay or trans, it means they don't have to hide it for fear of ridicule and punishment. Would it be better for trans kids to be forced into the closet in schools?

To say that being trans is trendy flies in the face of reality (once again, medical consensus is that this is ridiculously far from the truth, no matter what individuals say on the matter). Frankly, it's spitting in the face of the homeless and abused trans people I know who have to fight tooth and nail to exist and get the medical care they need (and generally the statistics showing trans youth are more likely to be kicked out by families and be homeless). Are they all jumping on the bandwagon? But sure, being an oppressed minority with your rights constantly on the line is fun and trendy! TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:17, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

But what you or I believe is not the issue. We have an organisation. It is growing rapidly and becoming influential. Users of an encyclopedia that chooses to describe the organisation are due an explanation of its perspective. The description should be fair and balanced and point people to relevant information that is critical so that they can make up their own minds. We are not here to spoon feed people with the right view surely? I am not saying that trans is trendy. A former WPATH clincian is saying that in the LA Times. (Archived here - https://archive.ph/YnHtl).I am not saying that automatic affirmation and puberty blockers are wrong. Multiple international medical organisations are beginning to question the wisdom of automatic affirmation in Sweden, Finland, UK, Ireland, France. Swannieriv (talk) 10:08, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Re: It is growing rapidly and becoming influential - do you have a source for that? It reads like WP:OR. Newimpartial (talk) 11:23, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Short description in lead

The article needs a short description in the lead. It currently reads "Genspect is an organisation founded in June 2021 by psychotherapist Stella O'Malley." The reader has to continue on to the end of the first paragraph to get a self-description from the organization for a description. Obviously there is debate about whether the organization is "anti-transgender" based on the discussion above, but if that short description has been removed, another description needs to be provided per MOS:LEAD. --Kbabej (talk) 20:06, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Good catch. I think the SDESC was yanked accidentally in this diff, after removing a tag-bomb of {{better source needed}}s. The proposed alternative, "Organization" is laughably useless. "Gender-critical organization" might work, but using their preferred term is pretty loaded (as I see it, GC is literally just a MOS:EUPHEMISM for "anti-trans", the same way pro-life is to anti-abortion). I'm putting up {{Short description|Advocacy group}} as a relatively non-controversial version, per WP:SDESC's insistence on only using "universally accepted facts". RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk · contribs) 17:19, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Good compromise. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:30, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

cancelled NHS conference

The Times provides an alternative interpretation of the conference cancellation. It was subverted by those who did not want a diversity of views to be heard. See https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/gender-event-off-after-trans-activists-attack-extreme-views-b6c50x3p8 Swannieriv (talk) 12:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

First of all, please assume good faith on the part of other editors, especially in controversial subject areas. Presumably you're referring to this revert. The current text reads The event was cancelled following pressure by NHS whistleblowers, researchers, and transgender rights activists ... Your edit characterized the NHS staff themselves in that sentence as being transgender activists, an accusation which (in addition to being redundant), does not appear to be verifiable based on the article. Sideswipe seems to have reverted your change on these grounds. I can't read the fulltext of the source in question but it actually seems to be the same interpretation of events, just written from the publication's much more Conservative point of view. I've added the citation itself back to that sentence, as it supports the notability of this particular event. Regards, RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk · contribs) 22:45, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

General comments

The overall article and considerations that arise when trying to correct and balance an article whose origins were in it being a 'hit-piece' for the topic Swannieriv (talk) 01:15, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I am scratching my head in frustration about this post. If we were start from scratch with this article we would not have to try an retrieve an effort that was added specifically to trash the reputation of Genspect. When an organisation has not been much covered in the media some agreed framing is necessary to proved some context. It is next to impossible to make progress by piecemeal changes to what are statements that were initially posted purely to discredit. It would be true to say that Genspect was formed as the parental response to, what is perceived by some, as concerns about the increasing number of children presenting for gender medication for example and that the follow-up for these children has been inadequate. It would be true to say that there are strong objections to this view. it would be correct to list them in brief and then to add a section to traverse them and to list the professional organisations in favour of opposition to Genspect: But in favour of Genspect's role there is also sufficient hard evidence that the number of transitioners has increased for reasons that have no adequate explanation, that the evidence base for gender medicine is poor, some who transition come to regret it and increasingly both national and some professional bodies are backing away from what have been very permissive affirmative regimes. Whether or not we personally agree one way of the other there are others who hold that the guidelines of numerous medical organistions including and WPATH, Pediatricians and Psychologists have opposed ROGD but not specifically Genspect. Swannieriv (talk) 01:29, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

This is presumably regarding this removal. Because they are medical conditions, Wikipedia's discussion of gender dysphoria, (in children), and ROGD, plus the treatment, epidemiology, and causes thereof, must be based on the highest quality, evidence-based medical sources available reflecting current scientific consensus (WP:MEDRS). The views of advocacy groups can be stated with attribution, but cannot be used as unequivocal evidence of a growing concern [in the medical community] about the nature of gender medicine for children and young people and a lack of evidence of its benefits, nor does University of Ontago, Christchurch's press releases sufficiently demonstrate a paucity of evidence of and many ethical issues. These controversies would better be discussed on their own articles, where they can receive the nuance and attention they deserve.

Neutral point of view means that Wikipedia cares substantially more about what reliable secondary sources have to say about Genspect, as opposed to what it has to say about itself, including controversies where due and relevant, so as not to create a false balance. This does not mean the article was written to trash the reputation of Genspect—a rather serious accusation, mind you. Warm regards, RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk · contribs) 00:31, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

@Swannieriv @RoxySaunders

144 of the 170 words in the lead are used in a context to discredit Genspect. The sources used in the lead are clearly all intended to discredit Genspect, not one to state the purpose and aims underlying the formation or main activity of Genspect. The issues raised are contentious and not consensus, as judged by the systematic reviews and comments from a number of highly reliable sources (State & Government commissioned reviews including the US (CMS 2016), Finland (2020), Sweden (2019, 2022), England (2021), France (2022)).

It should be noted that WPATH / AUSPATH references are no longer considered reliable sources, this judged from a systematic review of guidelines (Dahlen, S et al 2021) and by the WPATH self described lack of evidence behind SOC-7.

The sweeping use of "anti-Transgender" with the unfortunate WIKIPEDIA redirection to "Transphobia" accentuates the undue intention to smear the fundamental raison dètre of Genspect. The concept of "anti-Trans" is not defined, there are thus no reliable source linking "it" to Transphobia. At best OR. It is not "Bluesky" since with the criteria used here it would implicate also trans members of Genspect (including on the board) and notable members on the board of WPATH (including the president and chairman of the Pediatric chapter of SOC-8) as all being transphobic.

Inspection of the Genspect pages posts, their frequent Twitter messages and their self-described statements shows it supports parents groups, globally, has a focus on minors safeguarding against malpractice and, in line with international trends, intends to promote alternative, safer, treatments than such treatments of minors that are deprecated by all the State commissioned science reviews mentioned above. None of this descriptions appears in the lead and this lack of "first order" characterization of Genspect is blatantly in contradiction of WIKIPEDIA intention of encyclopedic content and requirements pertaining to undue, bias, neutrality. KoenigHall (talk) 11:16, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Does any part of Genspect has advocated against conversion therapy bills which include protections for transgender people from "suppression of gender identity" and worked with right wing groups such as the Alliance Defending Freedom and proponents of anti-trans conversion therapy who have called for an "immediate moratorium" on anyone under 25 transitioning and recommend "swift desistance from transgender ideation" as the "stated goal of any treatment regime" for transgender youth. The organization has been criticized for advocating the concept of rapid-onset gender dysphoria, which is not recognized as a medical diagnosis by any major professional institution, is not backed by credible scientific evidence, and has been referenced in legislation to limit the rights of transgender adolescents. Lisa Littman, who originated the concept of ROGD, is a clinical advisor to Genspect. actually contain false information or run contrary to the overall impression given by the body? If such information is all factually true and verifiable, and is "discrediting" Genspect, I believe that speaks more to Genspect than the information. If the truth is "discrediting", good.

You mistake your opinion about Genspect, and Genspect's opinion about Genspect, with what reliable sources say about Genspect. You can argue whatever you want, as can Genspect, but you need to present reliable sources saying so. Are there are pieces of the information in the article you actually consider false? Or would a balanced article be one where we don't include anything other than what Genspect has to say about itself and keep out all the reliable sources criticizing them and providing coverage of them?

Multiple sources calling Genspect "transphobic" and "anti-trans" in their own words is not WP:OR. That Genspect has supported things widely considered transphobic is well documented in the sources and not WP:OR. Saying we can't call them transphobic because members may not like that without providing reliable sources is WP:OR. Also, "we have a trans member" is not an ultimate defense against being transphobic. Especially when Genspect is open about the fact they only have one as a tactic to shield them from accusations of transphobia. We have a trans person on our advisory board. What that means is that centrist and left of center journalists, politicians, producers, and activists face an immediate obstacle when they try to shut us down by labeling us as transphobic. If you believe that you can make the headway that we have made without making that same decision as we did, please show me. Many organizations have tried, have made different choices, and we respect them for that. But they have not succeeded in the same way that we have.

Looking at Genspect's most recent post, last I checked they were calling somebody a "groomer." Also, their definition of minors is people under 25, which is not a definition based in any scientific evidence or supported by any mainstream health organization with regards to trans healthcare. It's infantilizing and inhumane. Same for trying to stop conversion therapy bans, one doesn't have to read especially hard between the lines to figure out what that means. Trans people are not some boogeyman or political position or debate, we simply exist, even as minors. I'm 18, came out at 16 or 17, though I knew and kept it hidden since at least 13. Tell me to my face, as a legal adult who's self-supported since 16, that I'm too young to know and a vulnerable minor undeserving of a say over my own body. Say that I should have been made to go through therapy where they try and convince me I'm not really trans. Go join the crowd who mindlessly repeated "too young!" if a child ever said they were anything other than cisgender and straight, hurting dozens I've known over the years and countless I haven't. But don't keep arguing that's a perfectly rational and unbigoted position that doesn't hurt people in the real world. This organization's policies being passed would only require one of us being de-transitioned against their will. For you this is an academic debate, for me it's a daily struggle over whether existing as myself will be criminalized. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 12:08, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Incomprehensible

This article is really, really bad. It looks like it was written by a bunch of people who are insiders to the topic and may be sniping with each other about obscure issues not understood by mere humans. Thankfully, I'm well-read enough to understand what's meant by "ROGD" and "TERF," but I don't think most readers will have any idea what those terms mean (even if they're spelled out) and why they have any relevance to this topic. Same for the reference to SEGM and many others. The article is just a litany of facts with no coherent story tying it together.

Can somebody who knows far more about this subject than I do provide the 1000-foot view? Criticism is fine, but try summarizing it instead of expecting me to read highly specific details about the underlying stance, and figure out what they mean without the editor's personal background and vast knowledge of the subject.

I would love to cite Wikipedia policies that stand for what I have said above. But I'm far too infrequent an editor to have them memorized.

Techielaw (talk) 21:30, 5 August 2022 (UTC)