Jump to content

Talk:Genspect

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Aquillion (talk | contribs) at 17:02, 17 February 2024 (→Template for biased sources). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"False claims"

This source says that:

These ‘guides’ also make false claims that there is “no evidence showing that social or medical transition reduces the risk of suicide among young people with gender dysphoria”.

We mention this in the lead, but not in the body. As per WP:LEAD the lead can only be a summary of what's in the body, so I am moving the mention into the Reception section. It doesn't appear to be due to include it in the lead. AndyGordon (talk) 10:01, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Discredited" 2: Electric Boogaloo

I see an earlier discussion about this topic, but it was a few months ago, so I'll start a new one.

"discredited" is WP:CONTENTIOUS and not necessary when a far more factual alternative phrasing exists. There's an excellent, great quality source signed by multiple medical organisations that *very clearly* states in WP:MEDRS fashion why they oppose it - the lack of evidence. If we're making medical claims, let's use the language of the MEDRS. WP:WHITEWASHING was waved around in the edit reason but not only does that link to an irrelevant policy (WP:NOTADVOCACY) but I also think it's pretty hasty not to address the WP:WIKIVOICE issue of using a different description than the MEDRS available on the subject.

BrigadierG (talk) 14:48, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also believe there is clear consensus that ROGS is, at the very least, not pseudoscientific.
Talk:Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy#Is "Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria" Pseudoscientific?
BrigadierG (talk) 14:55, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you are able to read the result of an RfC at this early stage, you should go into fortune telling IMO. You objected to the paraphrase "discredited" so I have proposed "pseudoscientific" which is the language of the source already cited in this article. What other terms would you propose to indicate clearly to the reader that ROGD is almost universally condemned as bad science? Your WHITEWASHING proposal failed at that rather dramatically IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 15:53, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You already have my proposal. We have a WP:MEDRS saying that it advocates against ROGS due to a "lack of empirical evidence", and a WP:RSOPINION calling it pseudoscientific. One of these is clearly a reliable descriptor from a medical source, while "pseudoscientific" is from an op-ed, and "discredited" is nowhere to be found. What exactly are you accusing me of whitewashing (a term I would note fails to assume good faith. You cannot accidentally whitewash something)? The RfC isn't closed yet, but there's enough comments to form a WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS that inserting "pseudoscientific" is not appropriate.BrigadierG (talk) 15:58, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With 6 "Yes" and 8 "No" !votes at my last rough count, my assumption would be a no consensus close - it is certainly too soon to assume a ROUGHCONSENSUS for or against.
Also, why are you referring to the piece from GCN as "RSOPINION"? It appears to be published as news.
Re: WP:WHITEWASHING, let's go at this the other way. Why did you remove used to justify limiting the rights of transgender adolescents? It is directly supported by a high-quality source. Newimpartial (talk) 16:09, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to have it either way on that. I removed it from the lede because I felt it wasn't an important enough subclause that is already covered elsewhere, but I can only shrug, happy to keep it if it makes you happy. On the other things though:
1. Yes, the GCN article is opinion. You can tell because it's written in the first person, and the author uses to "our" and "my".
2. Even if it were not an opinion piece, the author in question's job title is "National Community Development Officer" for a small trans advocacy non-profit, isn't a professional journalist or researcher, and doesn't hold any degrees in any scientific fields. In this case, a B.A in Video Production and a Master's in International Development.
3. Even if the author had an academic background, we have an even better source to take the language from.
On top of that, I don't even think there's a WP:STATUSQUO argument for keeping anything, because the word "discredited" was only inserted a week ago. For many months, the term read "controversial" (which I still don't think is a very good descriptor), so if the argument is for the status quo, we should revert to that.
BrigadierG (talk) 16:23, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1. Your view that the use of the first person turns a piece into RSOPINION is not backed by WP policy and practice.
2. Reliability of published material is typically evaluated for WP purposes based on the publisher, not the credentials of the author - editors who crawl through an author's CV to discredit their published work seldom achieve consensus for their judgments.
3. While WPATH is a fine source, that doesn't mean that its language choices are to be followed in all aspects of encyclopaedic writing. In particular, its style doesn't lend itself to succinct characterizations like the one we need here. Newimpartial (talk) 17:07, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let's revisit this once the RfC closes. For now, I propose a reversion to "controversial" per status quo. BrigadierG (talk) 18:25, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather stick to the status quo here, rather than the status quo ante. "Discredited" also appears to have the support of more editors... Newimpartial (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Discredited" is not language used in any citations present for that claim. It's very clear cut WP:OR and WP:CONTENTIOUS. BrigadierG (talk) 18:39, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you understand what "contentious" means on-wiki. "Discredited" is not covered by WP:LABEL, for example. And to paraphrase "pseudoscience" with "discredited" is paraphrase, not WP:OR. Newimpartial (talk) 18:43, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on a second. If "discredited" is a valid paraphrase of "pseudoscientific", and "pseudoscientific" is CONTENTIOUS, then "discredited" is also contentious. That's not how this discussion works because WP:LABEL lists examples rather than every item on the list, but even if it did, you've just set it out as a contentious label. BrigadierG (talk) 18:53, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
People have previously made the equivalent argument, that "anti-transgender" should be treated under LABEL because it can be a synonym for "transphobic" which is a listed example. This argument, however, has never attained consensus within the community, the prevailing view apparently being that differences of connotation matter even among "synonyms". Newimpartial (talk) 18:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the argument you're making though. The defence of the "anti-transgender" and "transphobic" distinction is that they're not the same. You claimed earlier that "discredited" and "pseudoscientific" mean the same thing, and that one is a paraphrase of the other. Now you're saying one is a LABEL and the other isn't, which means that they must not mean the same thing. To put it simply:
  • If "discredited" and "pseudoscientific" mean the same thing, then "discredited" is a LABEL because "pseudoscientific" is a LABEL.
  • If "discredited" and "pseudoscientific" don't mean the same thing, then "discredited" is not permissable because no RS uses the word or another word that means the same thing.
BrigadierG (talk) 19:01, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No; what I am saying is that the meanings of "transphobic" and "transgender" mostly overlap in denotarion, but that the connotations of "transphobic" make it a LABEL. Similarly, the denotative meaning of "pseudoscientific" in this context is essentially a subset of "disproven", and that it is the connotation of "pseudoscientific" that makes LABEL apply. Note that LABEL is about the affective resonance of terms, not the facts to which they may also make reference. Newimpartial (talk) 19:07, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the "affective resonance" is different at all, and if it is, that's still WP:SYNTH. We have a medical source. Could you please elaborate on the justification for choosing one source's language over another based on whether "the style doesn't lend itself to succinct characterizations" as opposed to other factors like reliability? BrigadierG (talk) 12:01, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Such policy documents as MOS:LABEL and WP:MEDMOS tell us to choose the words we use in WP articles based on the needs of our readers, rather than slavishly following the language usage found in WP:RS.
As far as SYNTH is concerned, the argument "term A is a synonym for term B which is covered by label, so term A is also covered by LABEL" is classic SYNTH, and is an argument which the community has repeatedly declined to support in the case of "anti-trans". Newimpartial (talk) 14:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The irony of accusing me of synth in the same comment as you call using the language of RS "slavish" is not lost. BrigadierG (talk) 15:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying "never use the same language as the sources", but the idea certain editors lean on, that WP should always use identical terms to its sources, is one of the great urban legends of enwiki. The idea isn't actually backed up by policy, and in the hands of certain editors (not you) it is deployed selectively against paraphrases those editors just don't like. Paraphrase is neither OR nor SYNTH, and is actually required for encyclopaedic writing.a Newimpartial (talk) 16:01, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that it's possible to PARAPHRASE a LABEL to be outside the scope of LABEL without committing SYNTH is truly one of the most novel feats of WP:LAWYER I've ever come across. BrigadierG (talk) 18:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LABEL says, If a word can be replaced by one with less potential for misunderstanding, it should be. WP:NOR says, Rewriting source material in your own words while retaining the substance is not considered original research. These points are clearly inscribed on the tin. Newimpartial (talk) 19:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Retaining the substance" is the operative bit here. Crossroads -talk- 07:08, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that discredited is a factual description supported by the sources, I suggest we keep it for now unless "psuedoscientific" becomes available. WP:FRINGE means ROGD is by no means just "controversial" and we should stay far away from such equivocation and amplifying of fringe viewpoints. The medical consensus is that it doesn't exist, the study which proposed it was incredibley flawed, no evidence has been found for it (in studies trying to ascertain whether it exists), and it is harmful junk which should not be used whatsoever. "Pseudoscientific" conveys that best, "discredited" a close second (and has been the status quo on the page for a while), but "controversial" is nowhere even close to what the reliable sources have to say on the matter. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:05, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agreed earlier that controversial isn't a very good descriptor because WP:BALANCE clearly runs against the concept, but I also don't think "discredited" is due. In the absence of consensus on "pseudoscientific" (which would be the ideal word if consensus decides it's due) I would argue defaulting to WP:MEDRS criticisms of it that it "lacks evidence" and is "not recognized" and so on shows far more respect for the lack of consensus on using WP:LABELs. Wikipedia is NOTVOTE, but it seems unlikely at this point there will be a defining consensus that "pseudoscientific" or any related labels are due.
If you take a look at my original edits, I had proposed wording that draws from the WP:MEDRS available, rather than a contentious synth of "discredited", a false balance of "controverisal", or the still-debated "pseudoscientific"
BrigadierG (talk) 19:11, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Either or both of "lacks evidence" and "not recognized" is a good replacement; I agree "discredited" is SYNTH. Crossroads -talk- 07:10, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It can't possibly be WP:SYNTH; it is the term used (alongside "bad science" ) in Ashley and Baril (2018). Newimpartial (talk) 11:05, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What source is this? I don't see it on this page (granted it is possible I overlooked it). Crossroads -talk- 01:06, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This (non-refereed) source, to which both of its authors refer in their later (refereed) work. Newimpartial (talk) 01:13, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see no good reason to go rummaging around in non-refereed sources for choice terms when the refereed sources are superior by any objective measure. Crossroads -talk- 04:48, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what term or phrase you are promoting as "objectively superior" but in any event, I only offered that reference to SATISFY you that "discredited" isn't SYNTH. Newimpartial (talk) 11:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that "discredited" is used there to refer to Blanchard's typology, not ROGD. Loki (talk) 19:49, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are quite right. But iNews uses "discredited" and Bay Area Reporter uses "largely discredited" - both in reference to ROGD - so my underlying point (the term can't be SYNTH) stands. Newimpartial (talk) 20:05, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The BAR was written after the word "discredited" was inserted into this article. There's a very real argument for circular sourcing on that one. As far as iNews goes, I would like to once again remind everyone that we have multiple WP:MEDRS telling us what language to use. What kind of quality source is iNews given the amount of RS we have available?
I can't imagine coming in with no preconceptions for word preference, reading over all of the many great sources we have in this article, and then deciding iNews is the best source available to understand the academic status of ROGD. This whole thing smells of WP:RGW taking the form of WP:ASSERT. BrigadierG (talk) 18:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting MEDRS (the CAAPS source), we have the Coalition for the Advancement and Application of Psychological Science (CAAPS) supports eliminating the use of Rapid-Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD) and similar concepts for clinical and diagnostic application given the lack of rigorous empirical support for its existence. There are no sound empirical studies of ROGD and it has not been subjected to rigorous peer-review processes that are standard for clinical science. Further, there is no evidence that ROGD aligns with the lived experiences of transgender children and adolescents. ... The available research is clear that transgender people are subjected to marginalization, stigmatization, and minority stress, which have significant detrimental effects on health and well-being. Terms, such as ROGD, that further stigmatize and limit access to gender-affirming and evidence-based care violate the principles upon which CAAPS was founded and public trust in clinical science. As they summarize at the end CAAPS supports eliminating the use of ROGD and similar concepts for clinical and diagnostic application given the lack of empirical support for its existence and its likelihood of contributing to harm and mental health burden.
We do not need to give a full account of ROGD in the lead, and our most reputable source on the topic says it shouldn't be used, has no evidence supporting it, stigmatizes trans people without accurately reflecting their experiences, and is used to limit the rights of transgender people. In a word: "discredited". In a few: "unscientific, lacking evidence, stigmatizing, and harmful". I believe "Pseudoscientific" fits better, but that's another discussion. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:40, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with "discredited" or failing that "lacks evidence". The RFC has nudged me towards preferring "discredited" over "pseudoscientific", because I agree that "pseudoscientific" has implications of junk pretending to be science in the vein of homeopathy or cryptozoology, whereas this is more debunked very low quality scientific research. Loki (talk) 19:04, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think "lacking evidence" tracks the MEDRS, while "discredited" doesn't. The reason I made this section in the first place was in particular to protest the reversion of "not supported by and major medical organisation due to a lack of evidence" to "discredited". I find the former significantly preferable per WP:ASSERT. Would you find this change agreeable? BrigadierG (talk) 19:34, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your update, I added a little more summary and think it's fine at this point. My main concern was trying not to divert the lead into an overly long summary of ROGD and give it undue coverage, as we provide the full context in the body. Also, part of that concern was that if we're going to list off organizations it's better to show their opposition to Genspect's stances more broadly as opposed to just ROGD. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:49, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mathglot has elsewhere endorsed contentious, unproven theory, which I see as having more potential than "not supported". However, I have tried to play nicely with the change previously proposed by BrigadierG, as may be seen in this edit. Newimpartial (talk) 19:51, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let's try to come to a middleground on this one. I'm willing to accept any descriptor found in any MEDRS as due. If you can find "contentious" or "unproven", or even "discredited", I'm happy to call it a day on this one. I'm not gonna RV on "contentious" because I think it's less value-laden than "discredited", but I think the same problem with SYNTH remains. I would say reverting the addition of contentious would be within policy, but we've been TROUTing each other long enough over something mostly unimportant for too long. BrigadierG (talk) 20:00, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Contentious" has been the stable paraphrase over at Irreversible Damage for years now, and has the explicit support of multiple editors with otherwise differing perspectives on the ROGD controversy. Personally I prefer "bizarre and unsubstantiated". Newimpartial (talk) 21:24, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Seems consensus. BrigadierG (talk) 21:43, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New subsection: Reactions from Transgender Organizations

Currently in the Reception section in the page, we cover reactions from news organizations and the medical community. However, we leave out the criticism from organizations such as Trans Safety Network, Health Liberation Now, and tranzycja.pl (a polish trans rights organization). Ignoring the criticism from multiple trans organizations seems ridiculous.

Health Liberation Now and Trans Safety Network are regularly cited by articles which we do already cite. However, the original sources give much more in-depth accounts.

For example, HLN's article A New Era follows the format of a standard scientific/sociological paper and all results therein are easily verified and corroborated.

Early links between Genspect and members of IFTCC and ACPeds were identified by Trans Safety Network, where researchers unveiled public promotions by Genspect of the documentary Trans Mission that featured Andre van Mol, Quentin Van Meter, and Paul Hruz.
Speaking on "gender issues" alongside James Esses of Thoughtful Therapists, on May 21st, 2022 O'Malley appeared as a workshop speaker at the FET Annual Conference in the UK.[81] An evangelical Christian group, FET has repeatedly lobbied against women's, children's and LGBTQ+ welfare, as well as having connections to the anti-gender movement through their appearance at the May 2017 World Congress of Families in Budapest, Hungary.[82] The 2017 World Congress of Families has been described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a "who’s who on the anti-LGBT and anti-choice Christian Right"[83] encompassing a mixture of legislators and religious activists, with several prominent members playing key roles in funding the push against reproductive and LGBTQ+ rights in Europe.[84]
FET's trustees include Julie Maxwell, who was also previously part of SEGM alongside O'Malley during its early inception.[72] Maxwell has a lengthy track record of anti-LGBTQ+ and anti-abortion activism as part of her work with Christian charity LoveWise,[52] plus being featured in an anti-trans DVD produced by UK Christian Creationist group Truth in Science.[91] FET, meanwhile, has previously lobbied against proposed conversion therapy bans in the UK[92(pp. 1–2)] with religious freedom as a heavy focus point. This demonstrates that high ranking members of Genspect’s team are going beyond public promotion of material from SOCIGE advocacy leaders by having a working relationship with them.
O’Malley’s workshop at the FET Annual Conference is not the first of such collaborations, nor will it be the last. On November 21st, 2021, the day after Genspect's ROGD Conference, O'Malley appeared with Bob McCoskrie of Family First NZ.[93] Another Christian-led lobby group with significant international connections pushing conversion practices under the guise of "therapeutic choice", Family First NZ was also represented at the World Congress of Families in 2017.[85] The 2021 panel of O'Malley and McCoskrie was promoted onto Genspect's Twitter, tying her collaborations with them into Genspect's formal operations.[94] Yet this was not the first time she had worked with them. Previously she joined Family First NZ’s push against Aotearoa’s pending conversion therapy ban under the banner of their ex-LGBTQ+ project Free to Live NZ (Figure 10).[95] Alongside her stood the forces of Laura Haynes, representing the IFTCC;[96] Erin Brewer, then representing Partners for Ethical Care (PEC) "on behalf of New Zealand children, primarily, who are suffering from gender dysphoria";[97] and Family First NZ’s own testimony
In addition to their direct collaborations, Genspect has promoted or directed their members to parent resources from anti-trans conversion practice advocacy groups, of both secular and conservative Christian varieties. Archive records show that both PEC and Advocates Protecting Children (APC), a project spin-off also co-founded by Erin Brewer, have been listed on Genspect’s resource list as “helpful groups”,[106] though APC has since been removed from the list.
In their “helpful groups” list Genspect also promotes Child & Parental Rights Campaign (CPR-C), a conservative Christian firm whose co-founding member Mary E. McAlister has worked as part of evangelical group Liberty Counsel to target conversion therapy bans on behalf of Christian conversion therapists Joseph Nicolosi, David Pickup, and Christopher Rosik.[67] Representing CPR-C, McAlister has also been featured in the supposedly-investigative Christian documentary "The Mind Polluters", which posits that powerful LGBTQ+ organizations are infiltrating school systems to groom children with pornography.[110]

In short, just this source outlines direct ties between Genspect and the International Federation for Therapeutic and Counseling Choice, as well two organizations present at the World Congress of Families: Family First New Zealand and the Family Education Trust. To ignore the ties between Genspect and religious conversion therapy organizations does a huge disservice to our readers, and the information is all easily verifiable. Per WP:NPOV, we have to give a neutral account. To ignore trans people pointing out the connections between Genspect and christian conversion therapy groups is miles removed from neutral and only serves to help Genspect continue to harm people. Per WP:VERIFY, all claims in these sources are backed up by extensive citations and even those who don't want to include them can't say the simple facts stated aren't verifiable or true. Per WP:NOR, the sources for these claims do exist and aren't original research on my part.

If we can't use the sources directly, we should at least be able to note what they've said, especially considering their citation in more mainstream outlets already used. Considering that, I propose we either use them directly for strictly fact based claims, or create a subsection in reception noting what they've pointed out. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 02:20, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources to improve the article

I saw some IP vandalism this morning and decided to check for new RS that can be used to improve the article. I'll leave a list here for other editors to do with as they will:

  • Crikey discusses Genspect, overlapping activist groups, and their campaigning/disinformation (particularly in the context of Australia but also worldwide)
  • Slate discusses Genspect's overlap with the "Gender Exploratory Therapy Network" and generally current thought about "Gender Exploratory Therapy"
  • The Daily Dot discusses Genspect's activism and leaked chats from Genspect's discord server where 1) parents discuss how to put their kids through conversion therapy and convince even their adult children they aren't trans 2) Genspect's Vice Director clarified they don't think anyone should transition and just focus on those under 25 for political expediency 3) members spread the grooming conspiracy theory and express admiration of groups like Gays Against Groomers and 4) Genspect's staff repeatedly requested parent testimony to support banning transgender healthcare in the U.S.
  • The Irish Independent and the Offaly Express discuss Genspect's latest conference, notable speakers and quotes, and the state of trans healthcare in Ireland.

Best regards, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template for biased sources

Hi, @Audrey Bacques added a template for biased sources saying "since this article seems to offer sources from only one point of view"

@Aquillion moved this template to one section, and then deleted a few sentences using Genspect as a primary source according to WP:ABOUTSELF. @Aquillion cites the essay not policy WP:MISSIONSTATEMENT.

@Audrey Bacques please can you elaborate your concerns?

In the mean time I am reverting the removal of those sentences. The article uses about 80 references and 4 of them are to the Genspect site. That doesn't seem excessive to me. AndyGordon (talk) 11:24, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hold no strong opinion on including or excluding this chunk of content but, if we are to keep it, I do think that it needs some work.
We must not use the phrase "gender identity ideology" in anything that could be interpreted as wikivoice. To do so risks granting credibility an entity that only exists in the minds of conspiracy theorists. That link is also dubious. We have already linked gender identity elsewhere in the article and Gender identity ideology (which redirects to Anti-gender movement) seems to be the more correct link to use here, if we are to link it at all. I did wonder if adding a caveat like "what they refer to as", or just putting it in quote marks, would work but that is hard to do in a truly neutral way.
Then there is our use of "harm". Again is it not clear whether that comes from the paraphrase or whether we, as Wikipedia, are accepting this alleged harm as real. There is the same ambiguity over where wikivoice starts and ends.
I know that we are paraphrasing O'Mally and Pluckrose here, and that they do use the phrase "gender identity ideology" (once) in the reference, but I think that we can only resolve the ambiguity of wikivoice if we make this bit into actual explicit quotations rather than a paraphrase where it is unclear what is them speaking and what is us. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue is that we have an entire section devoted solely to citations to Genspect itself, which obviously violates WP:NPOV and WP:BALANCE; the fact that it's confined to one section doesn't resolve the issue. Additionally, many things in that section are unduly self-serving, which isn't an appropriate use of an WP:ABOUTSELF source. Statements such as their claims that their goal is to "advocate for an evidence-based approach to gender-related distress, or that they are an "non-partisan, independent organization", or that it it was formed to combat harms done by gender identity ideology or that it seeks to be driven by evidence, and guard against being biased by other ideologies are all extremely self-serving statements that absolutely require an independent secondary sources. (Any discussion about "the harms of gender ideology" also obviously violates the WP:ABOUTSELF restriction on claims about third parties, though it's already so glaringly self-serving that pointing that out is hardly necessary.) WP:MISSIONSTATEMENT is an essay, but the basis for it is the policy restrictions on ABOUTSELF sourcing, which many people accidentally overlook when citing self-serving mission statements like these. The quotes in this section are all also inappropriate; they clearly violate the warning on WP:QUOTE that Quotations that present rhetorical language in place of the neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias can be an underhanded method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia articles. This subject has massive amounts of coverage from a wide variety of sources across a broad range of viewpoints (the rest of the article, unlike this section, cites everything from more right-wing press like the Telegraph to academic papers to LGBT press); with so many independent sources to draw on, there is no reason why we would devote an entire section to quotes from Genspect with no secondary coverage that serve only to present unduly self-serving rhetorical flourishes like the ones above. If this is a significant part of the subject, independent secondary sources will have covered it. ABOUTSELF is for raw, neutral, uncontroversial facts like the date an organization was founded, its membership, or where it is based; it's not intended to allow organizations to define how they are covered, and certainly not intended to be used to put chest-beating polemic statements like these in the article with only a non-independent non-RS source. --Aquillion (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Genspect&oldid=1208468860"