Talk:Cass Review/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Due weight

Why exactly do we use 231 characters to report the opinion of a single person affiliated with an SPLC-designated hate group (Genspect), while the paragraph on a report by eight Yale scholars – essentially the counter-report from a mainstream academic perspective – has been shortened to just 130 characters? --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 13:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I reverted that change. Yale’s opinion is obviously more notable than that, and it’s peculiar to me that breadth of coverage was never the bar for previous statements by relevant orgs, but it somehow is here Snokalok (talk) 14:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

It is not the opinion of "Yale".

It is a self-published document by a small political project at Yale Legal School that has received little coverage.

We give due weight to notable organisations, which this isn't. Void if removed (talk) 15:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

the counter-report from a mainstream academic perspective

This is overblown, can you please stop inflating the importance of this opinion. Void if removed (talk) 15:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

This is not how academia works. Universities don't have "opinions". Scholars do. In this case a group of eight prominent scholars and scientists working on the intersection of law and medicine/health policy who are affiliated with a very prominent university. The expert opinion carries weight. The report is essentially the most comprehensive (for now) counter-report from a mainstream academic perspective and should be treated as such. What they do is summarizing peer-reviewed scientific knowledge for a legal audience[1] and the report reflects mainstream scholarship and science in this area. Your absurd claim that this is a "political project" really says it all. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 16:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

If the expert opinion carries weight in academia, where are the other academic publications citing this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Again, this comment fundamentally misunderstands how this field works. Academic publications don't cite a report released days ago because academic publications don't appear within days, but years, months at best. Plus, the report isn't really intended as an academic publication, but aimed at a broader legal audience, per the goals of the project[2]. It's not a report that advances any new scientific claims, but that engages with another report (also not peer-reviewed or anything) by summarizing existing scholarship and knowledge. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 16:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

So it is an unreviewed, self-published document by some US-based legal academics and members of WPATH that for some inexplicable reason has (so far) been reported in a tiny Scottish Nationalist paper, and Teen Vogue.

And as such it should be given very little weight because this is not a MEDORG statement or a statement from a notable organisation, nor is it a peer-reviewed MEDRS response, nor is it some comparable "counter-report", and it should definitely not sit in its own whole section.

Its also, as an aside, really, really poor. Void if removed (talk) 16:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

This is a matter of law and human rights, just as it is a matter of medicine. MEDORG and MEDRS have no relevance. The legal field has quite different traditions than medicine, and works quite differently. If you are going to push this point, the Cass report is an "unreviewed, self-published document" too – a really poor one, to boot, judging by its reception from many academics and recognized organizations in the field. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 16:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

If this document is to be treated as a legal document rather than a medical one, then it’s essentially a case of WP:MANDY: a group of people who are responding to the threat of a (likely) incoming president who wants to put them out of business, or even in jail, and whose sympathetic lawyers have already used the Cass review as a pretext to argue for this. They’re not publishing reliable medical information, they’re raising a shield in a legal fight for their survival. Cass has implicitly levied an accusation, and this is them denying it. Well, they would, wouldn’t they? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

What? 24.63.3.107 (talk) 21:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I have a general concern, which includes but is by no means limited to, the Yale Integrity Project, that we are choosing sources that have the Right™ POV, even though they are self-published and do not seem to get much attention outside of this article.

For example, the first sentence has two inline citations, and I'm pretty sure that both of them could be replaced by proper Wikipedia:Independent sources, such as a BBC article. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they could be replaced by one of the news articles that is already cited in the article.

I think it would be desirable to get some agreement on the characteristics of sources that we would like to be relying on, and see if we can match that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not "self-published" any more than the Cass report is. The Cass report is a "report" too, just published by the authors, not in a peer-reviewed journal or anything. Badenoch has openly admitted it was meant to promote a gender-critical (i.e. fringe and pseudoscientific) narrative, a narrative recently described as extremist by UN Women[3]. The insistence that the counter-report (that engages with the Cass report based on mainstream scholarship) should meet a completely different standard is just weird. It's an expert report by eight reputable scholars, published by Yale. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 16:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

AIUI the Cass Report was technically published by the UK government, rather than by the authors themselves.

The Yale Integrity Project, on the other hand, is published by the authors themselves, as are the various press releases and open letters that we're citing. Some of these self-published documents have received significant attention from independent media outlets, which I think argues in favor of those being important for us to include. Others have been largely ignored by news, which suggests to me that we should probably not include them. Obviously, as things change over time (e.g., if a previously ignored statement gets attention, or if attention to an early statement turns out to be a very brief flash in the pan, and others are preferred afterwards), then the article would change, too.

This would be a typical approach for other subject areas and consistent with both our usual practice and the relevant policies and guidelines. Does that sound reasonable to you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

It was technically published by Yale University, as part of their work as experts in this area[4]. But all this is hairsplitting. From such a perspective the Cass report is also self-published, by a government that has been internationally condemned for its attacks on LGBT+ rights. So that is hardly an argument in its favor. It's not published by an academic journal, it's not peer-reviewed. It's a "report" that advances the opinions of the UK Government, and Badenoch said the aim was to promote a gender-critical narrative, i.e. a fringe anti-trans ideology and pseudoscience. So it's comparable to a report self-published by the Government on Russia on LGBT+ issues; we would certainly treat such a report with a fair amount of skepticism as a source too. If eight distinguished Yale scholars released a similar report critiquing the Russian anti-LGBT+ report, published by Yale, from a mainstream perspective, that would be regarded as a very solid source too. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 20:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

It's a "report" that advances the opinions of the UK Government, and Badenoch said the aim was to promote a gender-critical narrative, i.e. a fringe anti-trans ideology and pseudoscience

None of this is true. Void if removed (talk) 22:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Amanda, it's not published by the university, even though the PR team put out a press release about it. If it were published by the university, the authors would have no chance of getting it into a peer-reviewed journal (which I'm confident is their plan).

As for the Cass Review being self-published: If the report had come out as a strongly pro-trans stance, do you think it would have been published, or do you think the government (i.e., the Tories) would have suppressed it? If the latter, then you have to admit that the publication was not entirely under the control of its authors, and therefore it is not self-published. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Why are you using such conspiratorial language, and disconnected logic? That the Cass Review was published "by" the UK government, "advanc[ing] the opinions" of it -> the UK gov't. has often been "internationally condemned" for its attacks on LGBT+ rights -> Cass is unreliable. That is absolute SYNTH to the extreme.

The Cass Review is substantially peer reviewed itself, regardless of self-publishing or not. Seriously, consider stopping it with the inflammatory language. Zilch-nada (talk) 22:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

The context of the report matters. The Cass Review was not a review study done in a peer-reviewed journal without any clear purpose and goals. It was a review that was commissioned by NHS England, for the purpose of providing recommendations for the NHS, which had already failed to keep up with demands for trans healthcare. As such, it's inseparable from the larger context of a healthcare system run by the UK government. And of course, the UK government has gone to significant lengths in recent years to align itself with gender-critical positions. Hist9600 (talk) 00:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Criticisms of the Cass Review - which are mentioned - relate to its methodology and, in the most fundamentally sense, science. What the above user is doing is not only employing original research to prove unreliablity, but also detracting from such criticisms. Cass has itself been the subject of significant reviews; those sources matter, not absurd personal synthesis. Zilch-nada (talk) 00:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

For instance, citing Kemi Badenoch - a polemical politician in this case - and not the substance of the report itself (or even meta-analyses of such "intentions") - to make supposed claims about the report's intentions - is immensely dishonest from a Wikipedia editor. Zilch-nada (talk) 00:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

It's Wikipedia editing policy to assume good faith on the part of other Wikipedia editors, and to remain civil on the talk pages. That may mean not accusing other editors of being "immensely dishonest" about what amounts to a different point of view, or a different way of thinking about a situation. Would you be willing to strike through that comment? Hist9600 (talk) 01:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of bad faith? I'm calling the argument dishonest, not the user themselves. Can you please explain how such aforesaid original research is justified? Zilch-nada (talk) 01:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm reminding you to assume good faith. When you give an example of something that another editor has written here, and then say that it's "immensely dishonest" to say such a thing, that doesn't seem like a positive and constructive way to engage with other editors on an article talk page. Hist9600 (talk) 03:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I am not assuming bad faith. Can you answer my question above? Zilch-nada (talk) 11:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

@Hist9600, could you think of just letting this go. Reading what someone else wrote in the worse possible light, because one disagrees with what they are saying, in a contentious topic area, is not a good look. Similarly, @Zilch-nada, perhaps be quicker to strike and rephrase something that upsets another. Digging your heals in is also not a good look.

I think we've already established that the argument that "Badenoch therefore Cass Review bad" is logically incoherent. I wish some editors would stop repeating nonsense they read elsewhere in this talk page.

I've already outlined above how the scientific studies used for much of the Cass Reivew's systematic reviews (which were indeed published in a scholarly journal and peer reviewed) are international, as are the previous systematic reviews which produced similar results. There are dozens of recommendations and hundreds of evidence points in this 300 page review. Merely saying "it" is likely to be unhelpful when raising a criticism like "not a review study done in a peer-reviewed journal" because it really looks like an attempt to cherry pick without actually stating what on earth it is cherry picking and is neither a convincing argument or useful argument for anyone to agree or disagree with.

I think it is long past time that this page stopes being WP:NOTFORUM abused for editor's xenophobic content about British healthcare and academic professionals. This prejudice because they happen to share the same birthplace as some windbag politicians (many of which are now ex politicians and all of which are now ex government) is not acceptable on Wikipedia. It is no more sensible an approach than to dismiss US healthcare and academic professionals because you had Trump and are going to get Trump again.

Let's end this section. The "due weight" of a PDF that has been almost entirely ignored by the world's press is very very low. -- Colin°^Talk 14:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Background

Creating this topic so @WhatamIdoing's interesting tangent/proposal doesn't get buried beneath the never-ending discussion about medical organisations: what do editors think of dedicating the 'background' section to agreements both Cass and critics have (e.g., trans kids should receive some form of treatment). It would clarify what the Cass Review is actually about and could provide us with a more constructive discussion rather than the same old 'Cass is wrong/right because A/B/C'. I personally propose to add a small history section as well delving into the British context why the Cass Review was commissioned in the first place. While the systematic reviews will most likely shape research and clinical practice internationally, I think we could dedicate more space of the article what led the NHS to such a review in the first place. Any thoughts and/or remarks? Cixous (talk) 13:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea if well sourced but it might be difficult to establish due. For the parts about where critics and Cass agrees this article (a summary of the Yale integrity project report) Includes part of where they agree and could be useful (I can't think of another source that has both support and criticism). LunaHasArrived (talk) 13:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

It is potentially interesting and useful for the reader. But it is also a topic fraught with disagreement.

I would say yes as long as this is sourced principally to the background laid out in the review and interim review themselves, ie:

• The adoption of the Dutch Protocol at GIDS in 2011 under a research protocol
• The shift to general usage in 2014, even though the outcomes of the research were not published until 2021
• The sharp increase in referrals from around that time, along with a sex ratio shift
• The Governer's report in 2018
• The Trust's review of the service in 2019
• The 2019 Keira Bell judicial review of the service
• The negative CQC report on GIDS in 2020

(All from chapter 3 of the Interim Cass Review)

Outside the Cass Review, the definitive source for the background is IMO Time to Think (book). If we can neutrally present something like this as the background then fine. Void if removed (talk) 14:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with referring to the background sections in the (interim) review and your layout seems to include all the major events (though I would like to note that GIDS practice diverted from the Dutch protocol in various important aspects, most likely due to the steep increase in referrals). As for Time to Think: I haven't read it so I can't stand in for its neutrality, but it's been ubiquitously praised in the UK media Cixous (talk) 15:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

GIDS practice diverted from the Dutch protocol in various important aspects, most likely due to the steep increase in referrals

This is where it starts to get contentious. How and why GIDS made the decision to deviate from the Dutch Protocol in around 2014, and lower the age for administering puberty blockers, is quite murky, and when pressed the Trust could offer no real justification other than that they made a clinical practice decision based on "international findings and careful consideration of our own experience". Void if removed (talk) 21:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I see. It probably suffices to say that they started to divert from the protocol. On page 18 of the Interim Report they mention that "GIDS staff would recommend more frequent contact during this period, but the fall-off in appointments reflects a lack of service capacity, with the aspiration being for more staff time to remedy this situation". So CR recognises that staff shortage has had a hand in this situation, but, as you say, it does not unambiguously claim so. Cixous (talk) 12:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

The thing is, GIDS weren't novel in deviating from the Dutch Protocol. As Cass says:

Based on a single Dutch study, which suggested that puberty blockers may improve psychological wellbeing for a narrowly defined group of children with gender incongruence, the practice spread at pace to other countries. This was closely followed by a greater readiness to start masculinising/feminising hormones in mid-teens, and the extension of this approach to a wider group of adolescents who would not have met the inclusion criteria for the original Dutch study. Some practitioners abandoned normal clinical approaches to holistic assessment, which has meant that this group of young people have been exceptionalised compared to other young people with similarly complex presentations.

Cass is not referring to GIDS here - she is talking about clinicians worldwide. GIDS was comparatively unusual in its cautious approach. The Dutch Protocol published in 2006 had a minimum age of 12, but when adopted by Norman Spack at Boston Children's Hospital moved to a "stage, not age" approach, ie no age limits, but from Tanner 2.

In 2007 Norman Spack established a clinic in Boston, USA modelled on the Dutch protocol and began prescribing puberty blockers from early puberty (Tanner stage 2).

Practice in the USA began to diverge from the models of care in Canada and the Netherlands, following instead a gender affirmative model advocated by Diane Ehrensaft (Eherensaft, 2017).

Where it gets contentious is that (according to sources like Time to Think) in this period parents from England took their children overseas for treatment at Boston, and then parent advocacy groups lobbied GIDS to adopt this new model as "international best practice". With a change in leadership in 2011, GIDS adopted something similar to the Dutch Protocol approach under a research framework.

The ‘watchful waiting’ approach continued in the UK until 2011, when puberty blockers were trialled under a research protocol; the ‘early intervention study’. This was an uncontrolled study with inclusion criteria in line with the original Dutch protocol, and similar outcome measures.

However they did not publish any results (and when eventually published after the Keira Bell review, failed to replicate the Dutch results, and by some measures found some worsening). Despite that, they declared the intervention a success 3 years after starting and relaxed the inclusion criteria, more in line with the emerging "affirmative" US model:

From 2014, puberty blockers moved from a research-only protocol to being available through routine clinical practice. In light of the above findings, the rationale for this is unclear.

In addition, the strict inclusion criteria of the Dutch protocol were no longer followed, and puberty blockers were given to a wider range of adolescents than would have met the inclusion criteria in either the Dutch or UK studies. These included patients with no history of gender incongruence prior to puberty, as well as those with neurodiversity and complex mental health presentations.

Then as the caseload increased and clinical opinion within GIDS became divided on how to treat this cohort (ie, exploratory psychotherapy to address underlying causes vs an affirmative model) we got a series of safeguarding whistleblowers, internal reports, a Newsnight investigation, a judicial review, a CQC inspection, and the Cass Review. But - aside from the overloaded case backlog - the actual practice was by no means unique to GIDS, and was actually theoretically in line with what was happening worldwide by this point, erring towards the conservative end. Nobody seems to be following the Dutch Protocol as originally specified.

And it is against that backdrop that we have to understand the polarised reaction to the Cass Review, where a call for more holistic, evidence-based model of care with proper multidisciplinary assessment is widely decried as a return to "gatekeeping" by international bodies who have moved beyond even the assessment criteria of the Dutch Protocol in favour of "informed consent". Void if removed (talk) 15:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm, I see. How would you frame the diverging practice in the text? Cixous (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

My biggest concern is that, background implies before the review, when many of these topics weren’t agreed upon until after.

Wait times, for example. Now both Cass and her critics agree with reducing wait times. But we didn’t know that before, and indeed the prevailing narrative in the wider environment was one of trans kids “being rushed” into treatment (thank you BBC) Snokalok (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I just noticed Snokalok's comments about waiting times and "being rushed" or blaming the BBC for that narrative. Firstly you are confusing where the speed is. It was known for years that the waiting list for GIDS was growing exponentially and they were not getting through their patients quicker than they were being added to the list. The GIDS website had a notice on it telling readers how long ago the people they are seeing today were added to the list to give some idea of how long anyone being referred today might wait (i.e. not any less). This was very much agreed on before and one of the reasons for commissioning the review. The BBC reported a statement by a former governor of GIDS, who had resigned the previous week, who they quote as saying they thought the team were looking for "quick solutions" under pressure for various directions. This is standard reporting and quoting a person who was important enough to be quoted. Let's not blame the BBC for doing its job in that department please. -- Colin°^Talk 18:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm a bit nervous about history based on recent posts on this talk page, but if we can source this to the review itself, or quality sources that do proper journalism/research like interviewing people at GIDS and going through reams of boring meeting minutes, rather than blogging from their bedroom in some random US state, then we might get somewhere.

I'm not sure that areas of agreement are "background" and think this is more something to ensure we cover rather than having some section listing things people agree on (which suggests everything else is one huge Controversy section). Agreement is difficult to source because the professionals this is aimed at just read it and get on with their job implementing things. We have had a few responses from NHS England about what they have done and intend to do, which is in the article. And people don't tend to write articles about how great a systematic review was. They just use it and cite it when making their own recommendations, which might drip out over the coming years.

I agree that the systematic reviews (the York and NICE ones) are of international focus whereas the Cass Review publication itself is NHS England focused and is concerned with things like GIDS and child mental health services in our NHS.

I've read Time To Think back when it was published. My feelings were that it is over-long and over-detailed. I think in terms of a history of GIDS, it is fine, but not sure how much of that we would include here. I don't recall the book mentioning the Cass Review but if it did it probably only could say that it had been initiated. -- Colin°^Talk 17:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

In line with Wikipedia:Criticism#Integrated throughout the article, it might not all be in the ==Background== section.

For example, the article currently says that one group "agrees with the goals of reducing wait times and improving research". AFAICT nobody loves the NHS wait times, except maybe the private providers who are making money off of patients who have already waited too long. So perhaps there should be something in the ==Recommendations== section that says the wait times are appalling and they recommend early contact with the medical system, and everyone else agrees that the wait times are appalling. Instead of putting this in the ====Response from other health bodies==== subsection, the fact of their agreement should go wherever in the article we are mentioning wait times. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:09, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

As a minor detail, perhaps the lead should end with "organisations have expressed disagreement with some of its conclusions." WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree and just changed it into your suggestion. If the change is objected by a majority of editors, I'll self-revert. It seems to me, though, that we can all see eye to eye on this one. Cixous (talk) 18:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

You're probably right about the fact that it can (and will) remain a contentious section regardless of its content. I do believe that this article could benefit from more scientific context (e.g., what was the basis/rationale behind puberty blockers, when did they become routine, what do earlier meta-analyses/policy documents say etc.), with a redirect to puberty blockers and Dutch protocol (really hope that will get its own separate article sometime soon). That way readers will hopefully have a better understanding of the kind of environment in which the systematic reviews saw the light of day. Cixous (talk) 18:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

The Cass Review is far more than just puberty blockers. The Terms of Reference mentions the shift "from a psychosocial and psychotherapeutic model to one that also prescribes medical interventions by way of hormone drugs" but also the "significant increase in the number of referrals to the Gender Identity Development Service". Pedantic arguments about whether that increase was literally "exponential" or not miss the point that it is a huge increase, accompanied by a shift in several characteristics of patients, and one that simply overloaded what had been a small clinic. It reached the level where children referred to GIDS aged out before they reached the head of the queue. Child and adolescent mental health services are all currently hugely overloaded, not just this aspect, but this was perhaps the worst and certainly most visible example. Even without the controversy about medical pathways, this was a service in need of a review. Many of the recommendations are uncontroversial and even those that are are in the end a matter of emphasis. There are AFAIK no child psychiatric clinics anywhere that put 100% of referrals onto puberty blockers or hormones or surgery, even if that seems to be the impression given by various sides. Everyone agrees these matters need to be evidence based and everyone agrees more research is needed. -- Colin°^Talk 07:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, you're completely right about that. Perhaps a 'scientific context' section is WP:UNDUE here, but a more proper focus on the background of the review and why it was commissioned in the first place could probably help the reader understand why the Cass Review derived at some conclusions in the first place. Cixous (talk) 12:34, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Yale integrity project

@Void if removed For the record, the integrity project is described on their website as a collaboration between Yale law school and several different departments from the school of medicine, and one of the two leads on the project is from the school of medicine as well. --Licks-rocks (talk) 11:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I linked to it - it is not described as a project from Yale Law School and Yale School of Medicine. It is a Yale Law School project, that works collaboratively with some smaller departments elsewhere.

faculty members from the Yale Law School, Child Study Center, Department of Psychiatry, and Department of Pediatrics came together to synthesize and disseminate scientific and legal knowledge in support of LGBTQ+ youth and their families.

None of this says Yale School of Medicine. The project is part of Yale Law School, and sits on their website, and works with academics nationwide. And what you've done with your latest change actually misrepresents the document by implying that it is by academics solely from Yale Law School and Yale School of Medicine, when the majority of authors are not.

Your change is not an improvement, can you please self-revert, there really is no need to go to these lengths to try and shoehorn the Yale School of Medicine into this source's credentials. Void if removed (talk) 11:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Yale law school is a department of Yale university, just like the other three mentioned. They do not themselves have a department of psychiatry. Yale university on the other hand, does. And when you click on it in their list of departments, you are redirected to the website of the Yale school of medicine's psychiatry department.

In conclusion, I won't be self-reverting, and I ask you to strike your comment about shoehorning. If anything, I'm being too accommodating in that edit. --Licks-rocks (talk) 12:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

And when you click on it in their list of departments, you are redirected to the website of the Yale school of medicine's psychiatry department.

This is all your own WP:OR. Neither the cited source, nor the WP:PRIMARY source here say that the Yale Integrity Project is from the Yale School of Medicine.

In fact, the currently cited source doesn't even mention the "Yale Integrity Project".

Then there is this, which only refers to it as "the Yale report".

Then there is this press release from Yale which says, explicitly:

The Integrity Project at Yale Law School

I'm asking you once again to self-revert. Void if removed (talk) 13:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

In case you missed it, my request to strike was my way of informing you that I think you've crossed over into unwarranted belligerence when you claimed I was going to "lenghts" to "shoehorn" something in. The version of the article present at that time did not mention the yale integrity project, and was intended as a compromise, however, based on my looking at the page where the integrity project describes themselves your claim that the medical school has nothing to do with it is obviously mistaken, it's a collaboration between four different departments at Yale university, which is (indeed, if you want to call that a victory) hosted at Yale Law School's website. The other three departments all belong to the Yale school of Medicine.

You cited the source for that claim yourself, it's the web page for the integrity project, which falls under WP:ABOUTSELF, by the way, so no need for the shouty link to WP:PRIMARY. Anyway, if you want to argue that Yale's law school somehow has a pediatrics department, be my guest, but personally I have no reason to think it counts as WP:OR to not (mis)interpret that sentence the way you did. --Licks-rocks (talk) 16:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Taps source

The Integrity Project at Yale Law School

You are engaging in WP:OR by creating a claim that the source you're relying on does not explicitly say.

It says:

faculty members from the Yale Law School, Child Study Center, Department of Psychiatry, and Department of Pediatrics came together

I don't care if the last three are part of the School of Medicine, you are engaging in WP:SYNTH. The source does not say that the "Integrity Project" is part of the Yale Law School and the School of Medicine. I know it is founded by two people, one from each, that still doesn't mean it is part of both. As they describe themselves, per WP:ABOUTSELF, they say only that the Integrity Project is at Yale Law School. Both founders consistently say this.

We're now multiple replies and reverts into a thoroughly pointless debate over something plainly unsupportable. You're expending a lot of effort adding and now defending something that isn't explicitly stated in any source.

I ask a third time, self-revert. Void if removed (talk) 16:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for clearing that up. I'll grant you that it is indeed described by them as a collaboration that happens "at" Yale law school. Now if you could please strike your accusations of bad faith above, that'd be golden. I've implemented an alternative wording I suggested in my first edit summary, which describes it in a similar way to the source quoted for the sentence, which I hope will satisfies you better. Another solution would be to just take the way that they've worded it in the lead there and leave out the mention of the integrity project entirely, as I did in my first version. Whichever you prefer. --Licks-rocks (talk) 12:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Here ABC describes it as by Yale law school and Yale school of medicine. LunaHasArrived (talk) 19:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

That says "a report by". It doesn't say "the integrity project".

Pick a wording. You can either have "a report by Yale law school and Yale school of medicine", per this source, or you can have "the integrity project at Yale law school" per the others. You can't combine them to say what the original edit said. Void if removed (talk) 19:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

@LunaHasArrived, that's a much better source than The National we are currently using. Maybe we can get another to help resolve this naming dispute. There are some responses from Cass's team in this article too which need to be included otherwise we give the wrong impression that this critical report is accepted. The challenge for us, as writers of an Encyclopaedia, rather than activists pushing "Bad things about a topic I hate" onto the page, is we are required to (per all our key policies) summarise what our secondary sources say in our own words. So can someone have a go at summarising this source rather than cherry picking quotes, which is not at all encouraged and considered a last resort.

I'm confused about the detransition section. It clearly says we can't know the detransition rate as followup details are unknown (they were withheld from the team). So I'm not sure how this critical report can possibly state the rate is 0.3%. Maybe someone can explain to me how Yale know the follow up details when adult services withheld them? -- Colin°^Talk 19:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

It's covered by 13.9-13.12 in the Cass review, effectively one adult GIC did give over information and out of the ~3400 patients audited <10 detransitioned. I'm pretty sure that's where the numbers come from

I'll admit part of this was just adding a better secondary source on this review (I'll add also of note is probably the analysis of where the Cass review agrees with international consensus) LunaHasArrived (talk) 20:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I've read the Cass Review pages 168/169 and Appendix 8 again. The thing about the audit is it is a snapshot of a period in time at this clinic for children. There wasn't any intention to follow up patients for X years to determine the detransition rate. Of the 3400 patients, only 892 were referred to endocrinology for hormone treatment. The rest were effectively still working through their treatment decisions with GIDS and two thirds went on to adult services where their status is unknown. All we can do with that detransition figure, is say there were some. Anyone claiming the "This is a “detransition” rate of 0.3%" is displaying statistical incompetence of the very highest order. It is like if 500 people went to a concert. Only 50 went to an after party. Of those that went to the after party, 5 told you they didn't like the concert. And concluding that only 1% of concert goers didn't like it. We have no idea of the opinions of the 450 who didn't attend the party. Just as we have no idea about those who were still waiting or contemplating the medical pathway when they aged out of GIDS. These are people who perhaps had a couple of talking meetings before moving into the unknown. This is not a detransition study. -- Colin°^Talk 20:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

The Yale report, as it is referred to by the media, is now cited by the British Medical Association as one of their main sources as they announced that the "BMA [is] to undertake an evaluation of the Cass Review"[5]. It's essentially the counter report, at least so far, and it should have its own heading. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 00:52, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

A citation doesn't elevate a non-notable "project" consisting of two people into an organisation bigger than a dozen other organisations we list and don't have headings. Are you really claiming a citation makes this Word document, saved as PDF and stuck on a web site because nobody would publish it, into something bigger than a position statement from any of the professional bodies who have supported or criticised? The BMA thing isn't about the Yale report, Amanda, it is about a doctors trade union being upset that therapeutic decisions were made by politicians. -- Colin°^Talk 12:40, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

BMA Council response

Snokalok removed text that included responses to the BMA Council motion. These are cited to the British Medical Journal which is not only a leading medical journal but contains news and current affairs reporting for UK doctors. It is an important and reliable source. You can read the full article if you have a Wikipedia Library membership. Snokalok said "This feels undue" and I strongly disagree. This wiki article is weighted way too much already on random criticism often with weak sources. The text removed was

Not all members of the BMA Council agreed with the motion. Consultant radiologist Jacky Davis questioned whether it was representative of the opinion of the wider membership, who were not consulted. The editor of Archives of Disease in Childhood, which published the seven systematic reviews produced by York University for the Cass Review, said he was confident in the reviews and that the criticisms they had received "hold no water", and were made by "those still struggling to come to terms with the findings.

This is important information for our readers: the vote was not unanimous and BMA members were not consulted. The systematic reviews have come under a lot of activist criticism in this Wikipedia article nearly all of which has come from authors who haven't ever done systematic reviews or even clinical research. The article currently is way way too unbalanced into giving the readers the impression that there really is something wrong with these York systematic reviews. So the voice of the editor of Archives of Disease in Childhood is a necessary one to hear. That in their opinion, the criticism is baseless and activist led rather than evidence led. Far from being "undue", this article needs far more content from professionals who understand evidence based medicine and respect findings even if they may have wished were different. The text Snokalok removed should go back. -- Colin°^Talk 12:54, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I don’t deny that it’s sufficiently sourced, I just don’t think that in a section full of MEDORG responses, we should be giving half a paragraph to a few lone, individual voices. We’ve gone over this like four times now and always with the same result.

One can find a doctor that agrees with anything they want, that doesn’t mean that we need every article on MEDORG opinions to say “Dr. Harper in Manitoba, however, says drinking red paint is actually good for you!” But if we bring in those individual voices, then we have to bring back all the other individual voices we decided not to give precious space to. And on that note, nor do I think the BMA situation requires more than one paragraph in all truth. Snokalok (talk) 13:03, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

To refresh your memory, when the review first came out, a number of individual doctors and medical researchers in positions of significant relevance (such as the head of gender care research at U of Melbourne) openly criticized it, and at first when we were still scrambling for new info this was fine, but as we got more and more MEDORG criticism, we decided to scrap the opinions of individual medical professionals - influential as they might be - as largely a waste of space in comparison. Snokalok (talk) 13:12, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it's silly, and very much not WP:DUE, to single out one person or another, and go out of our way to say that it was not unanimous. Nothing about controversial topics like this is ever unanimous. Hist9600 (talk) 16:30, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I think Snokalok's point re the singling out of Jacky Davis is valid. It seems a minor point of detail that the vote was not unanimous. However, the final paragraph is directly relevant, as the BMA's criticisms are as-yet-unsubstantiated. The systematic reviews remain high quality MEDRS sources, and we must not give the impression that they have been substantially challenged when they haven't (yet). An announcement of an intent to challenge is not (yet) a result that should be used to undermine or detract from the weight assigned to the systematic reviews. We shall see whether the BMA's evaluation eventually becomes a rigorous piece of scholarship, but the fact that they have pre-announced the conclusions doesn't bode well. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:07, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine for the first two sentences to be condensed to "Not all members of the BMA Council agreed with the motion and the BMA membership were not consulted". These are important facts when it is being reported widely that this is actually representative of BMA's 190,000 members. And we need to bear in mind that the BMA is a campaigning trade union (in this case, picking a fight with politicians overreaching into the medical domain) not a professional body for a medical speciality. In their decision to have their own review of the review, they have somewhat stepped on the toes of other professional bodies here.

Wrt the views of the editor of Archives of Disease in Childhood let's all remember that this article is on the "Cass Review" not wider "transgender medical care in the UK". As such, a core component of this review is the set of systematic reviews commissioned, including the initial NICE and the later seven York reviews. These reviews have come under criticism and we leave that criticism hanging if we don't supply the response from the authors/editors/publishers. As editor of the journal that published the seven systematic reviews, it is plainly DUE that their defence and criticism of his attackers is relevant to this article. Put it this way, if as editor he admitted they had failings and was retracting them, you'd be quoting him for sure. That he isn't is relevant and due. -- Colin°^Talk 17:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Also I disagree with merging the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges comments into the BMA one. They are only in part responding to the BMA but also issuing their own position statement, which deserves a paragraph just like all the other professional bodies. -- Colin°^Talk 12:57, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Snokalok, I'm not seeing your claim that Consensus on the talk page was firmly against this. There was consensus on mentioning Jacky Davis. I don't think you've made any convincing evidence or got any support in denying the editor journal that published the seven systematic reviews a response on this page. This isn't a random doctor; he's the editor who has to stand by the work he published, which has been criticised. I ask you to self revert that, as it seems to be made solely on the grounds of not liking it, rather than that it isn't relevant or due. -- Colin°^Talk 17:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree, previous consensus against inclusion concerned the dissenting council member, not the defence by the journal editor of these reviews, which is WP:DUE. Void if removed (talk) 18:10, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

His opinion is certainly more relevant than Philip Banfield, obstetrician and gynaecologist, puffing the air full of guff about old adages. Colin°^Talk 19:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Alright then by this logic we should bring back Melbourne and everyone else. We only have Banfield because he’s acting more or less as a spokesperson on this development. But the consensus was against individual doctors in general. And honestly if you want to take out Banfield’s mention, I wouldn’t challenge it. Snokalok (talk) 19:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I thought there was a talk page consensus against mentioning the opinions of individual doctors regardless of who they are. Loki (talk) 19:48, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

There's a talk page consensus against accumulating and listing all the individual opinions of doctors that flooded popular media after the release of the Cass Review.

This isn't just padding the article with extensive, duplicative and largely inconsequential quotes from non-notable individuals saying the Cass Review is the best thing since sliced bread/a load of old tosh. Events have moved on. There's now been some far more concerted criticism of the systematic reviews themselves, and in that light the fact that the journal editor has stood by the reviews and is disparaging of that criticism is relevant and WP:DUE, and this is a different category of response in what is an ongoing and developing disagreement. Void if removed (talk) 15:47, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I wonder if the US audience needs some help in understanding the difference between the BMA and the Royal Colleges. For example, are any of these mandatory, like lawyers in some places need to be a member of the Bar association#Mandatory, integrated, or unified bar associations to practice law? Which group would normally make a decision about, say, whether children need to have a vaccine to attend school, or whether teens should be allowed to take Prozac? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:01, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

There isn’t really one. The American healthcare system is decentralized, it’s the whole reason why you don’t see moments like in Finland and the UK where a couple doctors with central authority make the entire country’s decision on GAC vs GET. It’s why bans on such here are done by politicians, because only they have such central authority.

Generally, the way it works stateside is reputable orgs develop recommendations for best practice, and they’re generally listened to, but every doctor or hospital makes their own final decision, and usually the decision on treatment will be more case by case or doctor by doctor according to the practice’s relevant experience and their keeping up on primary research; with the guidelines more serving as just that - guidelines. The only central medical authority they have to answer to is in regards to their medical licenses, which are a state matter, and indeed a lot of politicians enact bans on GAC this way, by automatically revoking the licenses of those who practice it - but again, that’s a political domain, not a medical one.

At the end of the day, total final authority over medical treatment just, doesn’t exist here the way it does overseas. The decisions over trans care in countries with centralized care are often a matter of a single digit number of fallible humans, often with very limited experience treating trans people and almost always their own preconceived biases over such, deciding how to wield their absolute authority over the matter. Whereas in the US you’d very much have to convince every single doctor individually, which is a much more Herculean task.

Hope that helps. Snokalok (talk) 03:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

To elaborate, we do have the Department of Health and Human Services, but its authority is virtually nonexistent and its recommendations when it does make them are generally not taken with any determinative degree of seriousness because at the end of the day it is a political organization staffed by political appointees in a country that’s always five minutes away from Balkanizing, and it’s fully treated as such. It’s why abortion doesn’t become completely legal or illegal every time one party or the other wins the election. Snokalok (talk) 03:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

As our article on the British Medical Association says, it is a trade union, and as such doctors are not required to be members, and some have announced the have given up their membership over this issue. Many see their role as one to negotiate pay and conditions, not to play at being NICE or entering culture war territory. They could justifiably argue their role could be to voice concern about politicians making medical decisions but it isn't seen as their job to conduct their own evidence reviews or to vet clinical guidance. I can't think of any other circumstance where they did that. The 50 odd people on that council were elected (by a tiny portion of the membership who bothered to vote) on the basis of their union campaigning, and not on any grounds of being a world authority on a medical topic. It is rather baffling and I suspect won't lead anywhere useful.

The body that regulates doctors is the General Medical Council. Many doctors are members of one or more royal college where specialisms like general practice or psychiatry or paediatrics are dealt with. One has to take exams to be admitted, so this is part of one's career development and essentially a necessary part of rising up to be a consultant. It is rather more expected that a royal college would choose to disagree on medical matters, and would be able to offer an expert on the matter of disagreement, unlike here where we have someone who is an obstetrician and gynaecologist weighing in on a matter quite outside his practice.

I think it would help the article if we clarified in text that the BMA is a trade union. -- Colin°^Talk 08:01, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@Colin Regards the Trade Union status,I have added explanatory text. Peckedagain (talk) 19:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

We've got some text now, though I suspect the inclusion of "and professional body" has probably confused things. It is in the source so not really removable, but all it means is a body that a group of professionals might belong to. Here I think readers might assume such a body has regulatory role, which the BMA doesn't or a medical authority role, which the BMA doesn't. It is possible we will get a good source that explains better that this sort of action is generally considered outside of its remit as a trade union to represent doctors, but we'll need to wait for that. Colin°^Talk 10:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Is the BMA talk of ‘no decision about me without me’ an empty statement given that the Cass Review did include gender disphoric young people? It's FAQ:

• "Did the Review speak to any gender-questioning and trans people when developing its recommendations?"
• "Yes,... over 1000 individuals and organisations across the breadth of opinion.. prioritised (A) People with relevant lived experience (direct or as a parent/carer) and organisations working with LGBTQ+ children and young people generally. (B) Clinicians and other relevant professionals with experience of and/ or responsibility for providing care and support to children and young people within specialist gender services and beyond. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peckedagain (talk • contribs) 21:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

See below. I've removed it and it isn't "BMA talk" as the statement from BMA clearly calls this out as a personal statement by Banfield. It isn't "empty". It is misinformation, much like the misinformation that Cass excluded expert from the review. -- Colin°^Talk 10:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

UKCP statement: Use exploratory therapy , not affirming

I wonder if this recent litigation that UKCP lost and the 2 public statements they have made since, are of bigger significance than at 1st glance in terms of how Cass is making a wider impact?

Snokalok didn't think so, and abbreviated my first posting of it: [I have now posted more], including their statement having lost the litigation. It is very rare that a national professional health body has to publicly update it's practise and publicly refer to litigation in 2 seperate documents. I posted a quote from their statement:

• "Litigation pursued by James Esses – Gender critical beliefs:
• "UKCP also recognises the validity of the professional belief that children suffering from gender dysphoria should be treated with explorative therapy, rather than being affirmed towards irreversible and potentially damaging medical intervention. Psychotherapists and counsellors accredited by UKCP are fully entitled to hold such beliefs and any discrimination against them on this basis, including by UKCP-accredited training organisations, is unlawful."Peckedagain (talk) 16:34, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

This as the public apology made by the psychotherapy college who threw James Esses out, interesting it also refers specifically to Cass:

• "Metanoia also acknowledges the changing policy landscape in this field, including the significant UKCP withdrawal from the 2017 Memorandum of Understanding on Conversion Therapy, on child safeguarding grounds, as well as the outcome of the Cass Review. "Peckedagain (talk) 19:34, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think any of this is WP:DUE for this article. These are not responses to Cass, they are passing mentions in subsequent events, which isn't the same thing, and while large political fallout is notable (eg. policy changes affecting the whole country) a passing note in apology in personal litigation is, I think, a trivial tangent . Void if removed (talk) 08:23, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I was thinking mostly similar. I'm going to be bold and delete the Metanoia Institute apology. LunaHasArrived (talk) 14:18, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Refreshing the Puberty Blocker page - inviting all editors to help there too

Many editors here of all views have done a good job of summarising and making readable the evidenced findings of the Cass review.

If any of you wish to also give time to refresh the Puberty Blocker page - I have listed there a list of places where that page contradicts this one. Peckedagain (talk) 21:57, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Consider the other side

I disagree with these edits:

• this removes a line (who said the Cass Review "amounted to powerful scientific evidence in support of restrictions on the supply of puberty blockers") that summarises the argument the judge used to close the legal case against the puberty blocker ban. The edit summary says " I don’t a single judge’s opinions on a medical matter bear tremendous weight". That's an argument, certainly, though when I've mentioned some of our quoted figures lack of professional qualifications others get upset this is some kind of insult or personal attack. But consider the other side. Imagine the judge had said the ban was illegal, and that Cass and their systematic reviews did not amount to convincing scientific evidence to justify a ban. Holy cow, half the editors here would be fighting with themselves about our best our LEAD SENTENCE could mention the word "legally discredited" and the judges verdict would be quoted extensively. This was an important legal decision, highlighting the line between what politicians could do and what doctors should decide for themselves. That it was dismissed is important and the reasons for that dismissal are important. We don't need to agree with the judge about the evidence being "powerful", we just need to report that this was the reason the judge gave for dismissing the challenge. So I think it should be restored.

• this (mentioned above) removes the response by the editor of the journals where the seven scientific reviews were published. We have given extensive space to the critical opinions of random people making mostly factually dubious claims about these seven reviews. A couple of editors have claimed we now have a consensus against citing individual doctors. Well, here we are citing someone in their role as journal editor, not as a random doctor with an opinion. That they have robustly defended the reviews is notable. And, really, if you think that's your threshold now, there's plenty material citing activist doctors are heading for the chopper. Think carefully what you wish for. I think this should be reverted and consider that on the balance of positive/negative opinions right now, we are over-quoting the critical activists. That isn't NPOV and doesn't help the reader understand that, in the UK at least, this report is (barring the council of a trade union) universally accepted by professional bodies and politicians that matter and in no way likely to end up being retracted.

• this, while were are discussing removal, is baffling. The closure of GIDS, a result of the interim report and other assessments, was the earliest and most significant change. The creation of regional centres is one of the recommendations and so these two new centres is an early and significant development. Snokalok, please remember this is an article on a UK commissioned serious independent report that took 4 years to determine the future of UK's gender identity services. It really isn't a plaything for activists to argue over or a PDF stuck on a web server somewhere. For crying out loud, the closure of the largest such centre and the creation of others, under a new "holistic" model and with a new referral pathway, is the point. This is like having a report about whether we should build this or that new railway, and then chopping out the paragraph that mentions we are building this one. Could you, or someone else, please revert that. Try to remember please that to American activists this topic is "something we hate that must be destroyed" but in the UK this is part of our healthcare and is shaping what happens. -- Colin°^Talk 07:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Holy cow, half the editors here would be fighting with themselves about our best our LEAD SENTENCE could mention the word "legally discredited" and the judges verdict would be quoted extensively. No, they wouldn’t, because most wikipedia editors don’t see the opinions of judges in civil court as determinations of truth and fact. All a case going one way or the other means is that you’ve managed to convince one lawyer in a powdered wig of something. A judge does not speak with the voice of god. “Legally discredited” is an entirely nonsensical term thusly.

And in that vein, the edit remains valid, because it’s simply the singular opinion of a relatively uninvolved lawyer in a powdered wig.

We have given extensive space to the criticalopinions of random people making mostly factually dubious claims about these seven reviews. A couple of editors have claimed we now have a consensus against citing individual doctors. Well, here we are citing someone in their role as journal editor, not as a random doctor with an opinion. That they have robustly defended the reviews is notable. And, really, if you think that's your threshold now, there's plenty material citing activist doctors are heading for the chopper. I’d be very interested to see this material you say exists, because up until this point the consensus has been to cite organizations, not individuals; and I can’t find - looking at the reception section - a single instance of an individual doctor being cited.

The creation of regional centres is one of the recommendations and so these two new centres is an early and significant development. If these centers had been built, I perhaps would agree with you, but that’s not what this is about, the section cut out more or less just said “They’ve begun thinking about it”. When the centers are actually built and running, then perhaps it’s warrant space in the lead, but at the current moment the largest and only really impact of the review thusfar is the puberty blocker ban. Snokalok (talk) 14:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

The first two regional centres opened in April. Please look these things up before editing. 212.36.63.7 (talk) 16:56, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence "BMA Council Chair, Philip Banfield, said the task force commissioned to review the Cass Review "will work with patients to ensure the evaluation invokes the old adage in medicine of ‘no decision about me without me’"". This is personal puffery by Banfield (the BMA statement separates this as a personal remark by Banfield) and we don't crystal ball how this review might operate before it is even started, assuming they find someone to do it. It doesn't add information as we already noted that the review was to be conducted and report by Jan 2025. It implies that unlike the Cass review, theirs will consult with patients. This is basic misinformation commonly reported in some activist texts, which has been addressed already and completely false. The irony, not missed by many of the signatures to the letter complaining about this, is that the BMA's sole purpose to represent doctors, not patients or politicians (other groups serve those roles). -- Colin°^Talk 10:03, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@Colin's argument for putting back the text that has the reason the High Court judge gave for rejecting the legal challenge seems entirely convincing ("We don't need to agree with the judge about the evidence being "powerful", we just need to report that this was the reason the judge gave for dismissing the challenge"), so I have reverted it back in. Peckedagain (talk) 19:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree, this isn't about amplifying an undue opinion, this is directly relevant to the case. It is entirely within the gift of the health secretary to engage emergency legislation in response to strong scientific evidence, which is what happened. Void if removed (talk) 07:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I have restored the text again as the consensus seems clear. This was a remarkable removal. The case was widely reported when launched and widely reported when closed and is of national significance both to the prescription of these drugs but also the debate about political power over medical decisions. Snokalok, we all get that you don't like the judge's opinion, but were are not stating it as a fact that Wikipedia agrees with. I haven't looked, but I'm pretty sure the US supreme court, who like this judge, dress up in historical costumes, rulings on abortion are widely detailed on Wikipedia despite most editors finding them horrendous. -- Colin°^Talk 10:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I've removed it again. There's no consensus here, and it runs into similar problems as the sentence below. This is not the quality standard being enforced by you in other parts of this page. This judge is not a medical expert, so his opinion on the level of evidence does not carry significant weight for inclusion. Especially not when the next sentence already points out that it was an "evidence-based" decision, so it's effectively duplicating information. --Licks-rocks (talk) 11:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

This is not being quoted for opinion on the review - this is being quoted because it contributed to the judge's ruling.

You've ignored my comment above explaining why it's relevant. Please engage with that, which has nothing to do with medical expertise, and everything to do with legal relevance to this specific case. Had the health secretary acted on weak evidence, the challenge could have succeeded. Void if removed (talk) 13:37, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

What's relevant here is how the judge ruled. Since it's a judge and not a doctor, I think it's more relevant what precedents he based his ruling on, than what he thought about the medical stuff. Currently it just says he thinks it's "powerful evidence", which, as I pointed out, is then repeated in the next sentence, so in my view it doesn't contribute much to quote that snippet there. --Licks-rocks (talk) 14:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

It's relevant because this is what Transactual argued:

They argued that she had not identified the “serious danger to health” needed to justify emergency legislation and that she should have consulted before issuing the order.

I suggest including an explanation that this is what they argued, and the quote from the judge strongly disagreeing, because that is what the ruling is based on. Void if removed (talk) 17:59, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

That would be spending a lot of text on what ends up amounting to a small tangent. --Licks-rocks (talk) 18:04, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I have edited as @Void if removed suggests: which seems a reasonable balance of all views.

I disagree with @Licks-rocks view that the court case is a 'small tangent': on other occasions judges' ruling have caused the roll back of legislation: and it is not a 'small tangent' that a High Court challenge has tested the legality, which has been confirmed as legal. Peckedagain (talk) 02:03, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

A summary of the argument by which the case was dismissed is entirely normal for important legal rulings. And this ruling is not a "small tangent" but critical to both trans youth healthcare in England and to the line by which politicians can interfere with medical matters. This was not dismissed, for example, because the health secretary thought trans children did not exist and the judge agreed with them, which is perhaps a viewpoint more common in the US. And we need to remember that the UK "ban" is not absolute, unlike some US states. The Cass Review did not recommend banning this treatment entirely and considered it appropriate for some children. But that we needed more research to figure out who those children were and what the risks were. -- Colin°^Talk 17:56, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm minded to restore the response by the editor of Archives of Disease in Childhood. These systematic reviews the the core evidence publication of the "Cass Review", which have been attacked over many paragraphs in this article. This criticism doesn't just focus on Cass's own 400 page document, but equally on these reviews with claims of methodological flaws and typos and citation errors and so on. It seems that several hundred words of criticism over many paragraphs vs a single sentence is DUE and Snokalok doesn't have consensus to remove it. -- Colin°^Talk 10:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I do have the consensus because if you look in the thread above, there are several editors as well as myself who agree with the longstanding decision that was settled on to avoid individual doctors. I can tag them if you like. @LokiTheLiar

@Hist9600. Snokalok (talk) 15:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

And also, onus is on inclusion. Snokalok (talk) 15:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

As I said above this is not the same. This is the editor of the journal that published the systematic reviews standing by then, against criticism of the reviews. As things stand we are accumulating false imbalance.

Adding ever more random doctors cheerleading or condemning the report back in April added little so we rolled them all up and focused on major organisational and political responses.

We now have eg. the Yale white paper which purports to critique the systematic reviews. A response from the journal editor saying this is bunk is relevant and due and not the same thing at all as the earlier matters. This is an evolving back and forth and back and forth. This is another forth (or back), and to leave it out misleads the reader that there has been no answer to the later criticisms of the York reviews. Void if removed (talk) 17:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

And if the editor was speaking on behalf of the org, I’d perhaps agree with you, but he’s not, he’s speaking in his own personal capacity - same as Ada Cheung. Yale is different because Yale is on behalf of an organization, not a single doctor speaking independently of his org Snokalok (talk) 19:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

The Yale doc now has a note (added July 11th) explicitly stating it is the opinion of the individual authors, not on behalf of any institution. So we should remove it. Void if removed (talk) 13:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Nope, it was still published by the Integrity Project as shown on their site in the White Papers section - the clarification you mentioned is a standard disclaimer (a group of multiple experts from many different respected schools and organizations) that they are not talking on behalf of their universities/employers at large.

This persistent attempts to silent expert (and in this case, well cited, since even the BMA review has referenced the Yale Integrity Report for the basis of their own inquiry) critique of the Cass Review from respected experts is bordering on running afoul of WP:NOTCENSORED/WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Raladic (talk) 16:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Just to confirm, I do in fact agree with Snokalok here. If we're going to exclude individual doctors (and I agree we should), we should exclude all individual doctors. Conversely if we include this guy we should include the opinions of individual doctors critical of the Cass Review. You can't have it both ways: either they're all in or they're all out. Loki (talk) 20:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Colin and Void have been very aggressive in arguing against inclusion of a lot of what they claim to be "low quality" material on this page, up to and including some scientific papers and even a bit beyond. I don't see a good reason to then make an exception for an individual editor's personal remarks here. As far as his personal opinion matters, I'm sure it is already included in the published reviews he was involved with. So yes, I, too, agree with snokalok here.--Licks-rocks (talk) 23:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree that the views of a random doctor are not WP:DUE. Just because a quote exists in an article, does not mean that it belongs in an encyclopedia. Hist9600 (talk) 17:23, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

It sounds like the question here is whether a person who is all of these things:

• the editor-in-chief of the medical journal where the reviews were published,
• a clinician,
• a faculty member at both Uppsala University and Aga Khan University,
• an epidemiologist, and
• an international child health expert

should be treated as exclusively a clinician when speaking about the actions and beliefs of the journal. The relevant text in the article says this:

"Nick Brown, editor of the Archives of Diseases in Childhood, told The BMJ, “A common thread in the review findings was the breathtaking dearth of quality evidence to guide care in this vulnerable group of young people.”
Brown is adamant that the York research is robust. “All of the systematic reviews underwent expert, independent peer review, and each was revised accordingly. We were, and remain, entirely confident as to their veracity. Counter to claims to the contrary, rigorous methods were adhered to at every step,” Brown told The BMJ.
Brown continued, “Criticisms of the methodology hold no water. The single search strategy used by the York group is far more yielding than the scattergun approach advocated by those still struggling to come to terms with the findings.”"

This source, which identifies the speaker in the role as the journal editor, is taken by some editors to be him speaking personally, and not on behalf of his organization.

The competing source, which is a press release, says

"A ‘task and finish’ group, established by the BMA’s Chair of Council Professor Philip Banfield, who will also appoint the group’s chairperson, will pay particular attention to the methodology used to underpin the report’s recommendations. [...]
Professor Banfield said:
“It is vitally important we take time and care to get this work right. This is a highly specialised area of healthcare for children and young adults with complex needs, and as doctors we want to be sure they get the most appropriate care and the support they need. The task and finish group will make recommendations to improve the healthcare system that has, for too long, failed transgender patients. It will work with patients to ensure the evaluation invokes the old adage in medicine of ‘no decision about me without me’. It is time that we truly listen to this group of important, valued, and unfortunately often victimised people and, together, build a system in which they are finally provided with the care they deserve.”"

This source, which identifies the speaker in the role as the organization's council's chair, is taken by these same editors to be him speaking on behalf of his organization, and not personally.

This looks like a double standard to me. What's it look like to you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

The difference is that people directly related to the review, such as the authors of it, or as you pointed out, the editor of the journal in which the review is published defending its rigor is that WP:MANDY applies - of course they'll deny any criticism with it, so the simple words of refutation are just that, no one expects anything other than the people involved rejecting any criticism, which is why we have Mandy (incidentally, thanks to the UK of which the Cass Review originated) to avoid creating the appearance of false balance.

A contrast would be if someone uninvolved, with relevant credentials in the space, would go to defend the review, but such people appear to be notably largely absent outside the involved institutes/doctors since internationally the review appears to be amassing criticism, with little support (aside from anti-trans groups). Raladic (talk) 04:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Maybe, or maybe it's normal to include such denials. It looks like the exact quoted phrase "denied the allegations" appears in about 2,000 articles right now.

But I'm less concerned about whether to include it at all than about the Wikipedia editors above claiming that a news article that identifies someone by their professional role is just him "speaking in his own personal capacity", and specifically on the grounds that this is just a case of "a single doctor speaking independently of his org" and "the views of a random doctor", and then – when we look at a source in a nearly identical style, except the speaker presents the Right™ POV – the editors claim that that individual doctor is speaking on behalf of the organization.

This particular choice about labeling seems neither logical nor consistent to me. It seems POVish and even hypocritical, actually. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I point, in particular, to the editor-in-chief's use of the word "we". Unless he's in the habit of using the Royal we, that looks like he's speaking for more than himself.

I want to be clear that we could agree that he's speaking on behalf of his org, and that we still don't think it's worth including, and that would not bother me at all. I just want editors to apply a consistent standard, even here on the talk pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I read his remarks as being made as if he is speaking on behalf of the org but it is not explicitly stated and so I don't think we could attribute it to the org. I think if it were clearly attributed to the org, it would be included without question, but I still think it's due simply because it's a response by a notable person connected to the reviews to the criticism of those reviews, which at present is not balanced.

But compare this to the quote from Stella O'Malley, which I've repeatedly argued is not due, but keeps being defended. Again it seems to be taking a personal quote and extrapolating that it is the position of the org. That's inconsistent IMO. Void if removed (talk) 06:37, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

When I search the article, I don't see any mentions of Professor Banfield. The only quote in the BMA section is not his quote, it's a quote directly from the motion. So, what double standard are you even talking about? Loki (talk) 05:01, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm talking about the discussion on this talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:27, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

OK. I don't support quoting Banfield. I don't think that we should quote individual doctors period. Loki (talk) 08:18, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't support quoting banfield either, and I can't find a single mention of him in the article, because, as I can see now that I've done a word search for it, colin removed it. I can't for the life of me find anyone on this page who disagreed with that particular edit. Is there some edit war I overlooked? Dit it somehow get wrapped up in a more general discussion where I missed it? why are we talking about this? --Licks-rocks (talk) 08:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I think if that press release wanted Banfield's views to be considered representative of the BMA Council (never mind representative of the BMA as a whole, which it appears it isn't) then the statement it attributes to Banfield would be incorporated into the base text of the press release. They'd write that the council as a whole had expressed a belief that they, unlike the Cass Review, were going to consult patients, because, duh, that's what a doctor's trade union does. They didn't and we shouldn't. Even in his role as trade union council chair, when did we agree that trade union council chairs are worthy of personal quotation? This is not a body setup to vet medical questions of the day, but a union that argues with the government about getting more money for hospitals, better conditions, better employment terms, better wages, and so on. The reason this generated a modest amount of news coverage is the polarised and shocked response by both sides in this culture war.

Banfield said many things but an editor here singled out the misinformation to quote, which is particularly troublesome. Cass consulted with a couple of thousand individuals, including many patients and their representatives. I really have a hard time wondering how doctors BMA trade-union subscriptions are going to be spent interviewing a comparable number of patients and experts in order to do a better job over the next six months. My guess, frankly, is that they won't find anyone to do this and it will fade away. Why we are including misinformation about a "review" that hasn't been setup yet is another point.

I note above that Raladic referred to the BMA Council press release as a "BMA review". Goodness me, this is how misinformation propagates round the would.

WP:MANDY is about people, individuals, being accused of something bad. This isn't that at all. This is about systematic reviews and evidence and about a four year review and its published report. Nobody is denying "allegations", they are disagreeing with supposedly factual claims which reliable sources show to be false and unfounded. MANDY doesn't let us say "We can fill the article with criticism but cannot mention any counter criticism or defence, especially not counter criticism coming from someone associated with the review or its journal papers". The editor of the Archives of Diseases in Childhood, is a significant voice in the debate over whether these systematic reviews are flawed or not. It is not a given that they will 100% defend their work. Papers get retracted and correction notices issued. What I'd expect is that if these claims had any foundation, that there would be a corrective response. After all, these are the very highest reliable sources and a reputation for fact checking and accuracy includes responding to errors and failures. Our readers are being given entirely the false impression that these criticisms and falsehoods are accepted by the professionals involved who are presumably all hanging their heads in shame somewhere. The editor clearly represents those journals and those systematic reviews. Trying to paint them as just some random doctor isn't valid at all.

Loki, I don't think your approach of saying "X is a doctor therefore we can't quote them" is helpful. It doesn't work, for example, if the Editor of the ADC wasn't actually a doctor, but had a degree in journalism and medical ethics or whatever. Similarly the repeated removal of the judge's closing rationale is just "I'll invent an argument to remove text I don't agree with". Which is why I started this section to "consider the other side". One can regard that rationale as a decision and justification by UK High court, not as a decision by an individual. Banfield's remarks we quoted wouldn't be nearly so problematic if they weren't pure misinformation. -- Colin°^Talk 08:24, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Thinking about people, individuals, being accused of something bad, we do normally include statements along the lines of "Chris Criminal denied the charge of jaywalking", even when that has to be sourced to a weak source. Not including such a statement is generally considered to be an NPOV problem.

I wonder whether it would be better to say something like "The editor-in-chief of the Archives of Disease in Childhood has said that they stand by the quality of the review articles they published". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:40, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

That's at least better. The comments are notable mainly to the extent that they come from the journal itself, and not some specific person no matter how notable their credentials are. He did make some comments that he said are on behalf of the journal, and as editor-in-chief it's certainly not crazy to say he can say things on behalf of the journal.

I'm mostly trying to avoid the situation where the reader's opinion of the Cass Review is determined purely by credentialism. Whether the Cass Review is sound science does not depend on whether X doctor with a fancy title thinks it's sound, it depends on the actual quality of the research, and on whether future research bears it out or not. Opinions of whole medical organizations do have some informational value here, but opinions of individual doctors really don't. Loki (talk) 00:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

This does do a lot to make the sentence sound less sensationalist, which I think was a large problem with the original. --Licks-rocks (talk) 11:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Works for me. Void if removed (talk) 11:49, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

The originally inserted text said

"The editor of Archives of Disease in Childhood, which published the seven systematic reviews produced by York University for the Cass Review, said he was confident in the reviews and that the criticisms they had received "hold no water", and were made by "those still struggling to come to terms with the findings.".

The source text says

"Nick Brown, editor of the Archives of Diseases in Childhood, told The BMJ, “A common thread in the review findings was the breathtaking dearth of quality evidence to guide care in this vulnerable group of young people.”

Brown is adamant that the York research is robust. “All of the systematic reviews underwent expert, independent peer review, and each was revised accordingly. We were, and remain, entirely confident as to their veracity. Counter to claims to the contrary, rigorous methods were adhered to at every step,” Brown told The BMJ.

Brown continued, “Criticisms of the methodology hold no water. The single search strategy used by the York group is far more yielding than the scattergun approach advocated by those still struggling to come to terms with the findings.”

WhatamIdoing's proposed edit says:

The editor-in-chief of the Archives of Disease in Childhood has said that they stand by the quality of the review articles they published"

This is a remarkably insipid summary of what is a robust and insulting response by Brown. I wonder if editors here would be so keen to insipidly summarise the BMA Council or WPATH to being merely "critical" rather than quoting many sentences of profoundly dubious and clearly angrily hostile material. For example, to neuter PATHA's comments about "harmful recommendations" to merely noting they disagreed a bit. And I could pick plenty other examples.

Part of the point of quoting sides in this issue is to give readers a flavour of the intensity of opinion and the hostility each side has towards the other. When we summarise this as A agrees and B disagrees level of blandness, the reader would wonder what the fuss is. Nick Brown doesn't merely stand by the "quality..of the review articles" which could be read as a vague generalisation about articles that do contain flaws but are mostly good enough. He "entirely" dismisses the criticisms as "hold no water" and is extremely rude towards his critics, calling them "those still struggling to come to terms with the findings". I can quite understand why some editors don't like those opinions on this page, but they belong on this page as much as WPATH's unprofessional remarks about Cass's qualification for the job, or numerous other factually dubious comments. Without these, there's no flavour. It would be like watching a war movie where there were no bangs and no blood and nobody died. "Germany went to war and after a few years it lost" is not a summary of WW II.

Please consider that even if you don't agree with Brown, what he forcefully and rudely said about the critics of his journal's papers is part of the story we should tell. If you think the Cass Review and its underlying systematic reviews will ultimately be judged poorly by history, then Brown's stubborn and hostile comments look more damning on him than a bland remark that he stood by their general quality. -- Colin°^Talk 18:36, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure that reproducing the emotional content of any of the sources is a good idea. Maybe it's true that one side is insulting the other; maybe it's true that the other side sounds panicky. I'd still be inclined to consider an article that sounds like "They had some concerns" and "He dismissed their accusations as scientifically unfounded" than one that sounds like "The trans activists are behaving like a dying cancer patient who demands more ineffective chemo because 'even if it doesn't actually work, it gives me hope that it might', and the researchers are standing outside the oncology ward yelling 'Give me science or give me death, and you're just being emotional!'"

Even if the researchers are rationally correct, and I suspect that they are, it's still not the way to help people understand anything.

If you want this in soundbite form, I'd say this: The internet outrage machine does not need Wikipedia to contribute to it.

Also, this article will be much easier to write five years from now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Have you not been listening at all? The whole point of my objection is that it doesn't matter one bit what Nick Brown the individual says one way or the other. All that's important is what the journal he's editor-in-chief for says, and he made one relatively short statement as the head of that journal, so we should only include that statement.

For what it's worth, if we do include that statement I'd prefer to phrase it as The Archives of Disease in Childhood has said that they stand by the quality of the review articles they published, and not include mention of the editor-in-chief at all. Loki (talk) 03:49, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Your internet outrage comment is a fair one, but we control that with various success that by putting a threshold on what we consider reliable sources. So we don't sink to the level of blogs or twitter or activist magazines. The text I quoted above appear in the British Medical Journal, Whatamidoing, not some angry doctor Redit feed. When reliable sources report that these criticisms are robustly defended, it is entirely wrong of us to summarise that as though they were weakly defended. Particularly so when we have paragraphs and paragraphs of robust quotes critical of those reviews. Whatamidoing, would you look at the other parties that we quote extensively, and consider whether we are repeating "emotional content" vs solid factual statements that will stand the test of time. The WPATH "is rooted in the false premise that non-medical alternatives to care will result in less adolescent distress" and commenting on Cass's "negligible prior knowledge or clinical experience" are just a longer way of saying Cass is prejudiced and ignorant, which seems no different to Brown's claim that his critics are slow to accept disappointing scientific findings.

Loki, the source identified the comments as from Nick Brown, editor of the journal. We don't report journals has having positions (or having discovered or found something). And your suggestion is so vague it appears to apply to any review it has ever published.

We are required to summarise our best sources, not to water them down because we wish all parties were kinder and less passionate. Could folk have another go at actually summarising our source, which I have included above (and is available on the Wikipedia library should it be paywalled), rather than writing some neutered text that is essentially meaningless ("High quality journal says it published high quality reviews"). -- Colin°^Talk 10:03, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Glancing through the Cass Review#Reception section, I would say that a large majority of direct quotation in that section is unnecessary and/or inappropriate, beginning with the second paragraph. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

The list of Recommendations is very very long, and lacks meaningful groupings

Which makes it hard to for the reader. (see the left side of the image) so I made an edit, to group things into related groupings: -see the right hand side of the image.

I edited the page in [edit]: which was reverted by an editor who wanted to revert something else I had done, but regard changing the list they said my edit was:

• doing something that I can only describe as a "reverse copyedit". Also broken english"

I've checked wiki, and am not sure why the change was not a good 'copy-edit': but my 2nd attempt was also reverted, with the editor saying'

• "It was reverted before by the other user because it appears to be "reverse copyediting" which this still is, many of those new sentences are hard or unreadable "prescription of this" is not easier than "prescription of hormone therapy"

I have read the change again -and only 2 sentences had the words change, both to bring the key words in the sentence to the left side. eg

• FROM:
• There should be a clear clinical rationale for the prescription of hormone therapy below the age of 18, and absolutely no hormone therapy below the age of 16.[64]
• TO:
• Hormone therapy: There should be a clear clinical rationale for the prescription of this below the age of 18, and absolutely none below the age of 16

The rational for that change, is it makes it easier for the reader to scan down the list: with the' most important words are brought to the left: acting almost like a table of contents. which is easier than having to scan deep sentences before finding out what it is about.

It is something I often do in documents at work - the higher the number of people who will read a document, the more people-hours are saved by making the document easy to digest: is the understanding.

But maybe there is some underlying wiki principle that I am un-intentionally breaking?

So I'd be grateful if other editors can suggest how the list can be made more readible, within the wiki rules. Maybe it is just my personal preference, but that un-structured list grates on me. :)Peckedagain (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Why not both? Consider:

Hormone therapy: There should be a clear clinical rationale for the prescription of hormone therapy below the age of 18, and absolutely none below the age of 16. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:01, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I think that your idea of grouping them in some sensible way would be more helpful than re-writing. Perhaps these three categories would cover most of it?

• NHS structure (regional network, national multi-disciplinary team, increase the available workforce, training, etc.)
• Research (data linkage, central evidence and data resource, continual data collection, unified research strategy, etc.)
• Care provision (treat anxiety and depression, designated medical practitioner, see kids sooner, pathway for pre-pubertal treatment, hormone therapy, fertility counseling, detransitioning services, etc.)

WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:08, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I think some grouping would be good. And then individual recommendations could be slowly copyedited if they can be improved. Some recommendations are likely more important than others. Could the section/chapter heading be used to group or prefix a recommendation? That might still work inside WAID's three levels.

Thinking long term, all the noise about criticisms and acceptance will eventually be condensed, even though it appears to matter now. This is an "Independent Review of Gender Identity Services for Children and Young People" for NHS England that has been enthusiastically accepted by those that matter wrt what NHS England does (though whether money follows words and whether they can hire staff in this toxic field is something else). In future, people will be writing about which of these recommendations were implemented and which did not and why. -- Colin°^Talk 10:24, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Do note that this user is now tbanned from gensex and cannot reply here. Flounder fillet (talk) 11:43, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I've had a go at rearranging the long list into three groups. I tried to keep the order of items the same, but that might not be the best in the end. Please feel free to adjust and otherwise improve that section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

BMA (percentage)

@Raladic I don't know if others will agree, but IMO I don't think combining different parts of the source to calculate a percentage like this when the source doesn't straightforwardly put the numbers together like that is quite simple enough for WP:CALC but I could be wrong! All the examples for percentages in WP:AVRC are trivial, this doesn't look exactly the same. It states The numerical data from the source is copied directly with an added conversion near to it. and the example is "were 120 of 200", but that isn't how it is formatted in this source.

I also think it overcomplicates a section where fewer numbers would be better, as this is the third time the numbers have changed in reported sources I believe (indeed, I already took one out with my edit as it kept rising, but was vague and didn't add much). I'd also add that based on this source we can fairly describe the original BMA Council motion as having been passed by a group comprising 0.035% of members. I don't think this is a road anyone wants to go down.

Rather than edit warring, maybe take it to talk. Void if removed (talk) 16:41, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

agree it is WP:OR to state the percentage until there is a source stating the relative percentages.

Though, the small percentage does seem to lead to question if the survey is WP:UNDUE on this article. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

IMO the inclusion of the BMA Council's original statement and the subsequent widespread coverage of this response is what determines WP:DUE. Void if removed (talk) 16:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The simply calculation is important and allowed per WP:CALC/WP:AVRC and is absolutely not OR as CALC says - Routine calculations do not count as original research and the cited source itself lists the 195,000 member count. Most people don't typically do partial fraction calculations to less than a percent in their head, which is why it was relevant to add the 0.5% calculation here.

And the inclusion of the membership number and the showing that it is such a miniscule amount of members who have shown opposition is important exactly as that, as otherwise the "over xxxx" appears to be a WP:SCAREQUOTE to appear like there's a massive opposition, when it's really very-very small. So either the numbers are properly contextualized as I have now, or the whole paragraph may actually be WP:UNDUE entirely as Bluethricecreamman pointed out since it look like there really isn't much opposition to it. Raladic (talk) 16:49, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

If the purpose of the calculation is to undermine the statement by making the number look smaller, then it’s OR unless the sources also engage in that type of undermining.

The DUEness/UNDUEness of a viewpoint is by weight of source coverage, not by number of participants in the viewpoint. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 17:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

There is no viewpoint in objective neutral reporting of the facts as stated in the source.

In August 2024, over 1400 doctors; 900 (0.5%) of which were members of the 195,000 that the BMA represents.. is a simple summary of the numbers from the article, nothing more, nothing less. Raladic (talk) 17:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Could we do, In August 2024, over 1400 doctors of the 195,000 that the BMA represents...? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

No, because as the article points out, only 900 of the 1400 are BMA members, so we would have to say In August 2024, 900 doctors of the 195,000 that the BMA represents.. and that's again, why I used our WP:CALC policy as most readers don't do fractional percentage calculations in their head and added the (0.5%) there, as permitted by policy. Raladic (talk) 18:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

It is not. If the source said "900 of which were members of the 195000" you could possibly argue adding the percentage is a trivial calculation, maybe. But that's not the case, it's combining numbers from non adjacent paragraphs to make a point about relative size the source explicitly doesn't. In fact the source brings up the mental numbers in reference to the size of the BMA Council, ie that the original statement was made by a small group in private without polling the membership. Void if removed (talk) 17:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

And most governments of the world have elected council/house/senate leaders that make decision on behalf of their members that elected them to represent them, so your point being? Raladic (talk) 18:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The BMA is a Union, and ordinarily members vote on policy at the ARM. Void if removed (talk) 18:10, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Actually the article itself points out that the council is the policy forming elected body of representatives of all Union members - The union’s council, an elected policy-forming body of 69 members, was asked to vote on a motion .... The motion passed, making it formal BMA policy..

So, this seems quite normal order of business. Raladic (talk) 18:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The viewpoint is “this is a really very-very small number”, as you stated. To understand whether this is truly a very small number we would have to know how many people typically sign similar complaint/protest letters. Maybe 0.5% is actually really high compared to the response that BMA motions normally get. The source doesn’t say, so we can’t say it or imply it. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 18:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Which is why there is no mention of "very small" or any such words with implications in the text (as that could be a point of view). Just simply the full statement of the facts of the numbers from the article, with one WP:CALC added to simplify the summary for the readers of this article, as outlined by our policies. Raladic (talk) 18:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

What you said was And the inclusion of the membership number and the showing that it is such a miniscule amount of members who have shown opposition is important exactly as that, as otherwise the "over xxxx" appears to be a WP:SCAREQUOTE to appear like there's a massive opposition, when it's really very-very small. so your reasoning is not a simplification but an WP:OR "contextualisation" that isn't given in the source in that way at all (and which, as Barnards rightly points out, is incomplete and misleading because without the information about how many usually respond like this in this sort of situation, you have absolutely no idea if this is a large or small percentage).

What you've done is add multiple, more confusing, duplicative numbers, and made this section harder to read, in a way that isn't in line with WP:CALC, is potentially misleading, and right now there are multiple editors disagreeing with you, yet you've persisted with this change and further changes, rather than follow WP:BRD. Void if removed (talk) 09:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

No, you yourself probably accidentally omitted the 900 doctors that are BMA members when you added the new source and changed the number itself. I added the 900 as the source article said so in the very sentence from the source: More than 1,400 doctors, 900 of whom are BMA members,... and so because the article itself added the important note that only some are members to fix your omission and also added the actual member number from the very article you added and added a simple WP:CALC, since the article mentioned the members specifically, so the adding of the member numbers was relevant and sourced from the very same article that introduced them for that same purpose.

Fixing your omission is what I did with the contextualization, that is not OR. It is a simple stating of the facts of the article and helps us accurately summarize here for the reader.

Also your strange accusation that I've made "further changes" that just help summarize the new article ref you added is unfounded, I don't think you'll find anyone disagreeing that adding what the ref said - The union’s council, an elected policy-forming body of 69 members, was asked to vote on a motion...the BMA’s membership base of 195,000 doctors... that the council members are elected to create policy for the BMA to represent them is in any way not useful to the reader for the purpose of WP:SUMMARIZE in the article here.

And as you know yourself, commentary of WP:OR does not apply to talk pages - This policy does not apply to talk pages, so the fact that I mentioned that the number is small in words here on the talk page is irrelevant for the policy, I did not mention any such thing in the article to maintain perfectly neutral of any such point of views and just simply summarized what the article said, including fixing your accidental omission of the member numbers. Raladic (talk) 14:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

When you said showing that it is such a miniscule amount of members, presumably you intended some part of your edit to show that? And whether you intended it or not, displaying a small number like 0.5% has the actual effect of downplaying the preceding number, which is not something that the source does. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

And as outlined by WP:CALC, a routine calculation like this is perfectly ordinary and allowed and is not OR per our policy, so I don't know how else to say it for you to stop calling it OR. Raladic (talk) 16:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

The percentage is WP:OR, because you've gone beyond the allowable simplicity of WP:CALC and created a novel contextualisation of the information expressly for the purpose of making the scale of the open letter response seem comparatively small even though that is a) not how the source presents it and b) incomplete because you haven't properly contextualised it against the percentage of typical scale of such responses, creating a wholly misleading impression, which is why editors should not do this sort of thing off their own back.

To accuse other editors of WP:IDHT at this point is interesting. Void if removed (talk) 16:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

The very first sentence of the policy section that CALC links to says …provided there is consensus among editors that the results of the calculations are correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources.. This conversation is about whether the calculation is a meaningful reflection of the sources, and I don’t think there is consensus that it is. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

If you disagree that 900 divided by 195,000 is not 0.5%, then that would not be consensus, note that the next sentence of CALC says Mathematical literacy may be necessary to follow a "routine" calculation.

Of course we could keep it precise at 0.461%, but I took the liberty to round it up to 0.5%.

As to the meaningful reflection of the source, yes of course it is a reflection of the source, the source has the 900 members that signed the letter and the total membercount of 195,000. Raladic (talk) 17:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I do think it is and I don't think that section means what you think it means. The agreement that needs to be had is that 900 is 0.5% of 195000 (it is) and that 900 and 195000 are sourcable numbers that can be meaningfully divided by each other (they are). That clause is intended to prevent stuff like adding statistics gathered by different methods, not simple math on simple numbers.

Per WP:CALC, 0.5% is just another phrasing of 900/195000. The policy I think you're looking for is WP:DUE. Loki (talk) 17:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Can you point to the line in the source that says something like "900 of 195000" Which would make this sort of thing appropriate? Because by my reading, that's when routine calculations are appropriate, but combining different parts of the same source to state a conclusion that the source itself doesn't is SYNTH. Void if removed (talk) 17:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:CALC is explicitly an exception to the overall WP:OR policy, which WP:SYNTH is part of. So, no: doing math with two numbers in the same source is not WP:SYNTH as long as the calculation is reasonable, even if the source did not explicitly make the calculation itself. Loki (talk) 04:43, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

The test for WP:CALC is not that it is possible to do some basic math with numbers that happen to be in the source. CALC says obvious, correct, and meaningful reflection of the sources. Raladic has stated in this thread that the clear intent is to demonstrate this particular percentage is miniscule. That's not a neutral, obvious CALC, that's combining different aspects of the source in a novel way to advance a specific POV, completely inverting the tenor of the source itself which strongly implies the opposite (ie, the BMA council's actions are unrepresentative of the membership, and the dissent in response is significant). Why can't we do what you're suggesting with many of the other numbers here? Do you think we really should say that the BMA council is 0.035% of members, which I offered as an absurd argument above? After all, at least in that case the numbers are in the same paragraph, rather than opposite ends of the source. Should we say that 2% of signatories are "former or current presidents of medical royal colleges"? That 1.4% of the BMA council described the motion as "a waste of time and resources"? That Emma Runswick who backed the motion is 0.0005% of the membership and that some members had resigned after she had served for 4% of their membership duration?

This is an enormous waste of time. Void if removed (talk) 11:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I mean, no, 1400 out of nearly 200k isn’t significant dissent, flat out, and it is a tiny percentage, and if the goal of the source is to try and make it seem significant then that only seems like more reason for the sake of npov to clarify the percentage. Snokalok (talk) 11:43, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

if the goal of the source is to try and make it seem significant then that only seems like more reason

And this is where it is veering into WP:OR and not straightforward WP:CALC, because this is an additional analysis not clearly made by the source, with the intention to reframe the material in the source to advance a different POV than that in the source, which is instead based on your own personal and unsubstantiated opinion that this is insignificant. Void if removed (talk) 12:11, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Seems like a pretty straightforward CALC inclusion that gives better understand for readers of what the information represents. Some editors here seem against such proper neutral representation of what the numbers represent. I wonder why. Silverseren^C 17:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

The reasons why are laid out extensively above. Barbs like “I wonder why” are not helpful. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I’m in favor of stating the percentage. This is elementary school math Snokalok (talk) 19:29, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

The mathematics of it is not in dispute. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Right, so then you surely agree it falls under CALC, since it’s simple enough math as to remain obvious Snokalok (talk) 10:48, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm indifferent about whether to include the percentage, but it would be permissible as per WP:CALC. Anywikiuser (talk) 20:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:CALC says obvious, correct, and meaningful reflection of the sources

These two numbers are 8 paragraphs apart in the source and not presented this way at all. This is not an obvious or meaningful reflection of the source. If the source had not happened to mention in passing the size of the BMA in a completely different context earlier in the piece, this conversation would not be happening.

And WP:SYNTH says do not combine different parts of one source to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source.

The source does not explicitly compare these numbers, at all, and I think 8 paragraphs separation counts as different parts of one source. Void if removed (talk) 21:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Both these compare and contrast exercises read like editorializing to me. The membership numbers of the BMA is listed on the other side of a wikilink. I'd rather we didn't do this. Draken Bowser (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Emphasis on the ...to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. - there is no conclusion whatsoever in stating the membership numbers, they are simple fact from the source to help summarize. Raladic (talk) 21:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not a CALC violation, but it sure smells like POV pushing.

To give an example closer to home, elections for the board of directors of the Wikimedia Foundation are coming up. We expect a couple thousand editors to vote. Let's say that if things go like they have the last couple of times, we would expect 2,000 editors to vote.

Now let's imagine that we are unhappy about the election results, and that 2,500 editors voted. Do we say:

• only 2,500 (2.5%) of the 100,000 eligible editors voted?
• only 2,500 (0.25%) of the 1,000,000 registered editors who contributed during the last year voted?
• only 2,500 (0.01%) of the 30 million ever-contributed editors voted?
• more editors voted than usual?

All of these are true, but they advance different narratives, and the choice of which (if any) numbers to include reveals the POV of the person making the choice.

What we know about the BMA situation appears to be:

• A few dozen committee members voted to do something.
• A thousand non-committee members publicly disagreed.
• Twenty times as many members said nothing in public.

What I don't know is:

• What's typical? Is this a big number or a small number for them? Have there ever been any similar petitions circulated?

Wikipedia will look biased if we say "Only 0.5% of current members signed this" and the facts turn out to be (I am making up this example) "This is the first public petition against a council decision ever, more members signed this petition than voted in the last election of the council, and shortly after the council reversed their decision, the petition writers banded together to promote a vociferously pro-science slate during the council's next election cycle." WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm being pedantic, "obvious, correct and meaningful reflection of the sources" is my issue here and why I think it goes beyond CALC into SYNTH.

The source says in paragraph 6:

The union’s council, an elected policy-forming body of 69 members, was asked to vote on a motion rejecting the Cass review at a meeting described by critics as “secretive and opaque”. The motion passed, making it formal BMA policy, although the breakdown of votes has not been made available and the BMA’s membership base of 195,000 doctors was not consulted.

The clear comparison here is between the size of the council, and the size of the membership. The inference is that this is a decision by a tiny minority, taken without consulting the huge majority (which, despite Raladic's claims, is unusual as the BMA sets policy democratically at the annual meeting, with the council only rarely setting policy in between annual meetings, and largely being responsible for steering and implementing the policy decided by the members). The acrimony over this action continues in further coverage today in The Guardian, but I digress.

The source then says, 8 paragraphs later, in paragraph 14:

More than 1,400 doctors, 900 of whom are BMA members, have signed an open letter calling for the BMA to drop its opposition to Cass.

I think it is improper to pull the number from earlier, and use it later in a different context, even if it is correct, as it is neither obvious to do so nor a meaningful reflection of the way the information is presented in the sources. And I think that if it is legitimate to do it for this number, it is arguably more legitimate to do it for the size of the council, where this size comparison is actually made more directly - but of course that would be absurd, and this whole thing is needless clutter. The comments in talk clearly reveal the intention is to make the response look miniscule, and that is not a reflection of this source at all, or any other covering this controversy. Maybe I'm reading WP:CALC too narrowly, but I don't think this is at all in the spirit of that policy.

As for correctness, as a further aside, despite the Times saying in passing it has a membership of 195,000 doctors, 20,000 are actually medical students, which is why we shouldn't take such passing numbers added as colour in news reporting as gospel to focmulate our own novel statistics. If 900 BMA doctors have signed an open letter, what's the proper comparison? The BMA membership, or the BMA membership who are doctors? This is all a completely needless can of POV worms and exactly why WP:CALC is limited in scope, not just free rein for any old calculation that you can happen to construct from numbers in a single source, and I'm exhausted by the amount of time spent defending something so trivial and WP:UNDUE that should have been discussed per BRD after it was removed, not reverted back in. Void if removed (talk) 09:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I think it'd be clear to most readers and uninvolved editors that noting the fraction and percentage is making an implied claim—that the petition signers constitute a small portion of the BMA membershiup. At least one participant here has made it clear that assertion of such a claim was intentional. I think the opposers of this content have it right. If the source were making the claim, or linking those numbers, we could calculate the percentage. Since the source does not, we should not present the numbers next to each other, let alone calculate a percentage.

One useful test for assessing whether an inappropriate SYNTH claim is being made is to consider whether the two parts of an implied claim could instead be separated. In this case, we already mention the overall membership of the BMA in the first paragraph of §British Medical Association. If we remove the later mention of 195k and the percentage, will all participants be content that all the relevant knowledge has been shared? If not, it's a sign that there is a claim you're trying to make, and it is (at least according to the sources presented so far) not one made explicitly by the sources. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Snokalok, even including the total BMA membership (sans percentage) alongside the 900 is making an implied claim. Do any sources connect the two figures? Why should we? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:42, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with FFF. I add that it's not just a claim that it's a small percentage; it's an implied claim that the small percentage is meaningful.

For example, if you run an ordinary survey, and the sample size is small, you should call out the smallness as a reason why your survey results could be inaccurate. But in this case, we don't have sources (that I've seen) suggesting that a vote of the full membership would produce a different response. There is no reason, either in the sources or according to common sense, to believe that this is unrepresentative. In fact, as painful as it may be to consider, given the way transphobia is baked into society, including medicine, any suggestion that most healthcare providers understand the Cass Review and support the "pro-trans" criticisms against it would likely fall under the rule that Wikipedia:Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The default assumption should be that most physicians don't pay attention to anything outside their own specialty. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:45, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Per my original edit here (which was solely to update the numbers on existing consensus wording) it didn't even reference the size of the BMA or how many BMA members had signed. As others said above, the BMA membership is one click away, there's no point in it here and it will be swiftly outdated. I favour reverting to this earlier wording with fewer numbers. Void if removed (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I mean, the Times source does say both the 900 and the 195k number, so, it’s not as though it’s synth or anything, it’s just repeating material from the same source. Snokalok (talk) 05:01, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I’d also like to add that on its own, 1400 doctors protesting makes it sound to the lay reader like the entire UK medical community is in an uproar, which is misleading. Adding the BMA membership number puts the actual scale of the protest in accurate perspective. Snokalok (talk) 06:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

The actual scale could be unprecedentedly large, if BMA members don’t normally write protest letters about the actions of their own union. But sources don’t engage in this analysis, so neither should our article. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:32, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Presenting information from different parts of the same source in a way the source doesn't is WP:SYNTH.

do not combine different parts of one source to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. Void if removed (talk) 09:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Again, WP:CALC is a specific exception to the entire WP:OR policy including WP:SYNTH. Loki (talk) 20:16, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

True, but CALC requires that the result be a "meaningful reflection of the sources", which is specifically disputed in this instance. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:17, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Exactly my point - CALC is not carte blanche to combine any numbers in any source to produce a percentage to make a specific point not made in the source (which does seem to have been the intent, based on comments here). If it isn't a meaningful reflection of the source, then (no matter how simple and arithmetically correct the calculation) it is SYNTH. Void if removed (talk) 09:20, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

But... it is though. One common use of WP:CALC is dividing population by area to make population density. Now, population density can be used to make comparisons and rhetorical points that neither population nor area can be used to make on their own... but it's still fine and not WP:SYNTH as long as both those numbers are sourcable.

This thread to me is, IMO, a bunch of people trying to make WP:CALC say stuff it doesn't say to avoid the obvious implication that this percentage is sourced. Loki (talk) 23:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

The article currently says "900 of which are members of the BMA’s 195,000", which needs some help. That makes it sound like there's a program at the BMA called "the 195,000", and not all BMA members are part of it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with WhatamIdoing and Firefangledfeathers that this "sure smells like POV pushing". Juxtaposing membership size or calculating percentages in an attempt at downplaying the importance or relevance of the complaint, in direct contradiction of the point made by our sources, is POV pushing. Seriously, why so much arguing about something high quality sources don't mention? Our reliable sources note this is a significant complaint both in size and also that many presidents of royal colleges have contributed. We absolutely cannot push numbers to give the opposite POV. What next? Add that the BMA membership is only 0.003% of the UK population so, you know, why should anyone care what they think? -- Colin°^Talk 17:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

So, there's really two questions here - first is whether it complies with OR/CALC to take a count of some of X that meet Y criteria from one source (or one part of one source) and calculate the percentage of X that count is based on another source/part of the source. I don't think anyone is questioning that is permissible in the vast majority of cases. The other question is whether the calculation being performed is actually warranted to be performed in the first place, and if so, whether the information is due for the article at all. Quite frankly, it's not. The source does not state a percentage or compare the number of doctors signing the letter precicely because that is an attempt to push the POV that their views should be diminished. The notable thing being reported on is that 1200 doctors signed the open letter. In other words, they are two distinct portions of the reporting. The source is not reporting the number in the background information to compare the later number to the total membership - it's reporting it as background information. The sentence should thus be reduced to state only the total number (over 1200) and can break that down into 900 of which are members of the BMA. But to include the total number of BMA members there is an inappropriate SYNTH violation. Even if sourcing was found that attempted to minimize the impact of this open letter by directly comparing the number of member-signatories to total membership... that would still be inappropriate here as it would be editorializing.

To see how inappropriate this is, just rewrite it to read instead: An open letter was signed by 1200 doctors, 900 of whom were members of the BMA, but that is only 0.5% of their total membership or the same but the total membership has 195,000 members total. Those two sentences would be blatantly inappropriate attempts to impart a POV on the fact being reported. It is no different just because most of the words have been cut out or it's worded differently. The information about the open letter cannot, per NPOV, be presented in a way to lead the reader to the conclusion that it's irrelevant/a "small" portion of the population. The reader themselves may very well make that conclusion after looking into how many BMA members there are. But the reader may also understand that there are a plethora of reasons someone chose not to sign the letter (not aware of it, didn't want the publicity, disagreement of wording but agreement with principle, etc). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 11:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: I've gone through and affected a plethora of MOS:LISTGAP issues by removing whitespace in between comments and changing bullets to colons as that is what the start of this discussion was using. This is an accessibility issue for screen readers and also causes issues with reply tools when people reply to a comment and it uses a mixture of * and : characters. The indentation character changes here consisted solely of swapping initial *s to :s, keeping the same indent level as the comment had before. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 11:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I have restored the text per Raladic's edit here which had edit summary Per FFF on talk, I don't think this is making it easier for the reader per WP:FALSEBALANCE, but since we now have the membership number a few paragraphs above, as cited from the ref, the reader can do the math themself. It seems that would be a suitable compromise. I should warn that if editors continue to juxtapose the letter-writers size with the membership size, which no source does and which has the obvious POV of suggesting to the reader a small unrepresentative number, in direct contradiction to all reliable sources, I shall likely take this to ANI. Several editors have now warned this appears to be POV pushing, so I think that's fair enough warning that this should stop.

We currently juxtapose the 69 council members with the 195,000 BMA members. Our source does this too, in a paragraph suggesting the vote may be unrepresentative as the members were not asked. While this is a sourcable comparison, The Times is a biased source, so one could argue that this comparison is still not neutral or fair. After all, many bodies have elected councils of size that is infinitesimal compared to the main body (think ministers of government vs population, or board of a large corporation or charity). I would not be opposed to moving this 195,000 figure to a more neutral position. How about at the end of "which is both a trade union and professional body representing 195,000 members".

As aside, the council is voted for a 4-year term, and the current council members were voted for by just 11,312 members, which is 7.1% of the 159,632 eligible voters. In comparison, the last UK General Election had 60% turnout. One can offer up no end of comparisons of sizes, if one wants to make a point. But the point has to be sourcable and overall we are required to be neutral. -- Colin°^Talk 16:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I like that change. I would also be fine with removing the 69 and not mentioning the 195,000 anywhere. None of the numbers are surprising or interesting. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Agree on both numbers.

@Firefangledfeathers, wrt this edit. A problem with moving the RCPCH text is that although you wrote "their statement does not mention the BMA and shouldn't be in that section" they really were responding to the BMA "calling for a pause in implementation of the new Gender Identity Services until further reviews [theirs] have taken place". The consequence of having the BMA response (and the ongoing response to that) in its own sub-section is it now appears after the RCPCH text and so readers at this point are unaware of anyone calling for a "pause" and planning their own "further reviews". Their announcement cannot possibly be referring to any other call to pause or further reviews, as there aren't any bodies making such in the UK. I appreciate they don't name them, presumably out of some gentlemanly weirdness about not dissing your colleagues by name. What to do?

If nobody seriously contests that the RCPCH (5th August) were responding to the BMA (31st July) then I think it may be chronologically and meaningfully more sensible to the reader to move the text back, as one of the many responses to the BMA. If you'd rather not, then another option is to move the BMA section up one, between the NHS England and other UK bodies sections. -- Colin°^Talk 18:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Their statement doesn't mention that the calls came from "bodies" in the UK specifically, and at that point there were indeed many such calls. They also refer to "academic criticism". I don't think the reader needs to know the specifics of the calls for a pause. I have no real opinion on moving up the BMA section. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree there were "many such calls". There were other non-UK bodies who disagreed, but they did so fundamentally, not with the "pause" language. Nor has any other body suggested a pause until further review, as those non-UK bodies simply reject it. Clearly if there isn't an editor consensus that the RCPCH were responding to BMA alone, and we can't find sources linking them, then it is difficult to do here. I thought it was as obvious as someone saying "I climbed the highest mountain on earth" and us writing "They climbed Everest" but this sort of thing needs agreement. Let's then move the section, because otherwise I do think our readers will be confused about what on earth the RCPCH are referring to. -- Colin°^Talk 20:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Scotland

Although the Cass Review was commissioned by and for NHS England, there has been an expectation that Scotland (which has its own separate NHS) would consider its findings. This led to a report Cass Review – implications for Scotland: findings report, Full PDF here. And it seems the Scottish government has accepted that report in full. (Be clear: they accepted their own "implications for Scotland" report, not the whole Cass report, which has findings and recommendations that are England specific).

I think our current text on this probably now needs condensed wrt various ministers saying they will consider things. And then something written about Scotland's response. I'm happy to work on that this weekend, just posting this here in advance. If anyone has useful sources to add to this please post here. Thanks. -- Colin°^Talk 07:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I have found these news sources:

• https://www.thenational.scot/news/24560857.scotland-move-regional-model-gender-healthcare-under-18/
• https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/24560798.scotland-will-take-part-uk-wide-puberty-blockers-study/

I have also found several versions of https://news.stv.tv/scotland/scottish-government-accepts-findings-of-cass-report-on-gender-identity-healthcare-in-scotland, with various rephrasings or omissions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:24, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Reflections from Hilary Cass

A new source has been published with a summary and reflections on the Cass Review by Hilary Cass.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-british-journal-of-psychiatry/article/gender-identity-services-for-children-and-young-people-navigating-uncertainty-through-communication-collaboration-and-care/D0F6B23F37C3D82B38C2470DF65854C9

I am not yet sure if or how it can be used yet, but it is is concise and worth a read to get a sense of what she considered the main points. I thought it that might help guide any focus or emphasis in this article on the key takeaways of what is a wide-ranging and at times hard-to-summarize review. Void if removed (talk) 13:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Third paragraph change

"The review has been criticised by several transgender-related medical organisations, and a number of international medical organisations have expressed disagreement with some of its conclusions."

It is true that the report has been criticised by several transgender-related medical organisations and non transgender-related medical organisations. It is also true that several medical organisations have rejected some all of its conclusions, its methodology, and its origins. It is also true that non-international medical organisations (BMA) have criticised the report. The sentence in its current form gives the impression that only transgender related organisations (with the implication here being they're biased) criticised (combative language) the report whilst non biased medical organisations merely disagreed (less combative) with only some (minimizing) of its findings.

Proposing it be changed to

"The review has been criticised by several medical organisations who have, variously, found fault with its methodologies and/or its findings." LDRnfr (talk) 22:44, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

@LDRnfr, are there any medical organizations (i.e., not individuals or publications, but official entities such as corporations and NGOs) that disagree with its methodologies and either agree with all of the findings or do not take any position at all on any of the findings? If not, then I don't think that methodological disagreements are important to call out.

It's a bit like giving directions to someone. You might disagree with their decision to take surface streets instead of the highway, but as long as they end up in the right place, the methodological disagreement is not very important. And if they don't end up in the right place, then the methodological disagreement is less important than the fact that they ended up in the wrong place. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Rephrasing BMA's initial paragraph

I rephrased the BMA's initial paragraph as follows (main changes underlined), trying to keep things as simple as possible:

"On 31 July 2024, the British Medical Association, representing the greater part of the UK’s medical practitioners, published a statement [NOTE] calling for a pause on the Cass Review's implementation while it conducted an evaluation, to be completed by January 2025. In anticipation of this, a motion was passed by the BMA's council to publicly critique the Cass Review, lobby the Government and the National Health Service for unhampered trans healthcare, and condemn what it called "political transphobia." Criticism was also levelled against the Review's allegedly "unsubstantiated recommendations driven by unexplained study protocol deviations, ambiguous eligibility criteria [viz. for inclusion in clinical studies], and exclusion of trans-affirming evidence".

No numerology here. Instead, I took the trouble to inspect the connection between text and sources referred to in the notes, and removed notes not clearly supporting the text. I could not trace the statement in the published version, "arguing that is was not a decision for politicians to make", back to the sources to which the two adjacent notes refer, and therefore removed it. Instead, I added two important points in the BMA council's motion. Would anybody care to comment? Retal (talk) 20:38, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

representing the greater part of the UK’s medical practitioners

This is IMO leading wording, as it carries the implication that the BMA's statement was representing the greater part of the UK's medical establishment. It is also needless, as - again - anyone can click the link to the BMA page and we have no need to repeat this information here.

to be completed by January 2025

I'd leave this out, because the aspirations of the BMA council are something we shouldn't have to keep updating here if it slips.

In anticipation of this, a motion was passed by the BMA's council to publicly critique the Cass Review

This divorces the statement from the motion (indeed, reversing causality almost with this wording), when the two are the same. This is all needlessly convoluted and the prior wording lays it out quite straightforwardly.

lobby the Government and the National Health Service for unhampered trans healthcare, and condemn what it called "political transphobia."

This is a page about the Cass Review, not the BMA's motion, we don't need every single detail.

[viz. for inclusion in clinical studies],

I see no reason for this inline explanation.

The wording before editors started adding percentages was pretty much fine IMO and I don't see the need for this when frankly the continued story is about the hostile response to the BMA council's statement and how they seem to have gone well outside their remit in this matter.

Responsibility for making BMA policy lies with the union’s representative body — a group of 560 members representing different medical disciplines and geographical areas — not the council. Policy is generally agreed at the annual representative meeting. Outside of this, the council can “formulate and implement policies” as long as it is not “inconsistent with any policy already laid down by the representative body”.

Void if removed (talk) 09:30, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

_{* Comment I reverted a reply by User:Retal here, because it was left inside of Void's comment above. This reply can now be found here in the version history. I've also, of course, notified the user in question of this change so they can recompose their comment.--Licks-rocks (talk) 15:06, 1 September 2024 (UTC)}

I don’t mind this change, I think it’s fairly balanced Snokalok (talk) 14:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

The suggested text fails verification to the sources and is over editorial and joins too many dots. Also we don't write things like "allegedly". That this claim is in quotes is sufficient for us to be not making it ourselves. Wrt the "arguing that is was not a decision for politicians to make" you say is not in the source. Our text:

The BMA criticised the related ban on puberty blockers, arguing this wasn't a decision for politicians to make, while calling for more research."

Source text:

The BMA has been critical of proposals to ban the prescribing of puberty blockers to children and young people with gender dysphoria, calling instead for more research to help form a solid evidence base for children’s care – not just in gender dysphoria but more widely in paediatric treatments. The Association believes clinicians, patients and families should make decisions about treatment on the best available evidence, not politicians.

I think we have a fair summary of that with the current text. -- Colin°^Talk 17:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I took into account some of your objections above. I also conceded your last point of critique and restored the sentence quoted above, putting back its two notes. In addition I use "methodological shortcomings" rather than the present opaque technical jargon ("unsubstantiated recommendations driven by unexplained study protocol deviations, ambiguous eligibility criteria, and exclusion of trans-affirming evidence"). Since I still believe the published summary lacks important points, I now suggest the following text: On 31 July 2024, the British Medical Association, representing the greater part of the UK’s medical practitioners, published a statement calling for a pause on the Cass Review's implementation while it conducted an evaluation.[NOTE] Criticism was levelled against the Review’s purported methodological shortcomings, and a motion was passed by the BMA's Council to lobby the Government and the National Health Service for unhampered trans healthcare (including “treatment at all ages”) and to condemn what it called "political transphobia." The BMA particularly opposed the temporary ban on puberty blockers, arguing this was not a decision for politicians to make.[NOTE][NOTE] Can we agree on this? Retal (talk) 23:37, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I think this proposed paragraph adds text more focused on UK trans politics than about the Cass review and the direct fallout of that (the puberty blocker ban). We aren't writing an article about BMA's views on trans politics in general (the "political transphobia" comment), but specifically about their rection to the Cass Review. There are still several aspects that are unsourced, such as the "unhampered trans healthcare". I'm uncomfortable with the description of this published statement as "representing the greater part of the UK’s medical practitioners" because that's clearly a point of contention, with multiple sources saying BMA members don't agree this represents their views, never mind "the greater part of the UK's medical practitioners". So I think we should stay away from suggesting "representing". While the council do have the power to make statements in BMA's name, our article text makes it clear this is a motion coming from a council vote, not a membership consultation.

I wonder whether other editors are happy with your suggested replacing the long direct quote "unsubstantiated..." with "methodological shortcomings". It's a blander description and I agree the list of issues is likely to be meaningless to many readers and every one of them is contentious. It does however give a flavour that the BMA council have credulously repeated some of the nuttier ideas in the Yale PDF. -- Colin°^Talk 11:07, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with some of your assertions here. While the 195k has already been shot down, and “the greater part” is largely saying a similar thing; saying “BMA members disagree” as a general direction for how to steer our edits makes it sound as though the entire base or a large portion does when that’s just not supported by sources, and we shouldn’t be basing out edits off of such a sentiment.

Beyond that, the point about political transphobia is relevant because the Cass Review has been actively criticized in the past as exactly that, and we have several medorgs in this very article making assertions of a similar nature; so if the BMA is saying that in their response to the Cass Review, that’s a relevant detail.

As for “unsubstantiated”, I think the “allegedly” in the original already softens it enough. Changing the direct quote of unsubstantiated to a summarization as “methodological shortcomings” weakens it in a way that I feel is too extreme and goes out of its way to downplay the criticism. Snokalok (talk) 17:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah no looking back over it again, it softens it way too much. I’d much rather cut “greater part”, add “political transphobia”, and not remove the “unsubstantiated” quote than this new proposal. Tagging @Retal so they see. Snokalok (talk) 17:09, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Would "methodological shortcomings and unsubstantiated recommendations" solve the problem for you? The original quote has the disadvantage that, as Colin observed, the list of issues is likely to be meaningless to many readers. Retal (talk) 18:49, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I really like the current quote the most, as “methodological shortcomings” really downplays what they’re saying. A lay reader can absolutely understand what “unexplained deviations from study protocol and exclusion of trans affirming evidence” means, we really don’t need to change that. Methodological shortcomings makes it sound to the lay reader like a technicality, like oops they forgot to check a few boxes as a formality. Snokalok (talk) 10:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Colin's assessment here. This section is already massive, please keep it on topic, ie what they say about the Cass Review, which is this page (WP:NOTEVERYTHING).

And the problem with the proposed construction:

the British Medical Association [...] published a statement [...], and a motion was passed by the BMA's Council

Is it reverses the order. The BMA council passed a motion, and then released a statement about it. The proposed text reads like the BMA made a statement, and afterwards the council passed a motion.

I would suggest revising the existing text to make this clearer, something like.

On 31 July 2024 the British Medical Association council passed a motion committing the organisation to lobbying against the Cass Review. In a statement, the BMA criticised the review for "methodological shortcomings", and called for a pause on implementation while it conducted its own evaluation, intended for completion by January 2025. Void if removed (talk) 18:00, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

(1) Divorcing the BMA’s reaction to the Cass Review from UK trans politics seems somewhat artificial. The BMA Council’s “political transphobia” accusation, for example, directly concerns the reaction of UK Government and NHS to the Cass Review.

(2) The "unhampered trans healthcare" aspect is not, as you assume, unsourced, but condenses the Council’s motion V: “prompt access to gender identity services and treatment at all ages” and motion VI: “condemn….blocking their (the transgender people’s] access to healthcare.”

(3) Then, the British Medical Association “representing” the greater part of the UK’s medical practitioners. Since the problem appears to reside in the ambiguity of “representing”, a simple change can save us a lot of unnecessary discussion: the BMA, “whose membership comprises” the greater part, etc.

(4) The reversal of temporal order: considering the BMA proclamation, it is not clear to me that all BMA comments on the Cass Review - not only those contained in the Council's motion - stem from that Council. This uncertainty made me distinguish the two.

(5) Calling the section "massive" is a judgement I cannot share. The BMA reaction is one of the most influential ones; it deserves an adequate treatment. Retal (talk) 19:22, 8 September 2024‎ (UTC)

@Retal, I think the part I'm most confused by is the [NOTE] stuff in your suggestions. Do you mean "add an Wikipedia:Explanatory footnote here"? Or "One of those little blue clicky numbers goes here"? Or something else? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:53, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

[NOTE] means one of the notes in the section as published. What else causes you confusion? Retal (talk) 16:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

On the points:

1. This looks like something that reasonable people could disagree over. It's relevant, but is it relevant enough? OTOH, it's relevant, but is it only the BMA's response that is relevant, or should we be adding context that says all of these orgs – UK and non-UK; supportive and critical – are responding within the context of their political millieu?
2. Forgive me for the WP:FORUM-ish comment, but do we really want to push the idea that of all the people served by NHS England, all of whom find their health care is restricted in various ways (e.g., scientific evidence, cost effectiveness, waiting lists), it's only trans folks that the BMA thinks deserving of "unhampered" healthcare?
3. We might need to have a discussion about who counts as a "medical practitioner" before saying that the BMA represents "the greater part" of them, but I suggest to you that simpler language, like "most doctors" would be much more appropriate.
4. The thing about corporate life is that even if all the "BMA comments" actually "stem from" something other than the Council vote, the organization itself didn't take an action until the Council took their vote. Before then (and since then), various individuals doubtless said stuff, but only official resolutions and official statements are from the BMA per se. The Western world draws a distinction between "The org said..." and "Bob, speaking in his personal capacity, said..."
5. It's about three times as long as the space given to other British organizations. Whether that's "massive" or just "larger" is not IMO important.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

On your point 5 about the section being larger, actually only 97 words are currently given to explain the BMA's opposition, while 203 words are given to discredit the BMA's resolution in that section of a total of 300 words. This does look a little bit like a WP:PROPORTION issue in favor of the people opposing it if more than 2/3 of the section are trying to discredit it instead of actually giving it at least a decent amount of space explaining the BMAs position.

I've tagged the section with a WP:BALANCE tag to fix the POV proportions of the section. Raladic (talk) 02:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

The BMA's position gets just as much space as medorgs. It then gets a direct response from the review for balance, and then a third paragraph with further coverage because it has sparked lots of dissent and criticism which has been newsworthy as the story has developed. I see no reason for a balance tag. At some point the way things are going this might even become a "BMA Controversy" section one day. Void if removed (talk) 06:19, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

We might be more likely to end up with a ==BMA Controversy== section in British Medical Association than here, and I doubt that we will know that until their next internal council election (in 2026). WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:05, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I was just thinking about that - wondering if it would be better to expand this back and forth and coverage over there, because it is now turning into accusations of entryism and more coverage etc that aren't really directly relevant to the response to the Cass Review, more about internal politics, for which the Cass response was the flashpoint. Perhaps worth considering that approach, with a summary/main section link here? Void if removed (talk) 08:16, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I’d be in favor of “most doctors” Snokalok (talk) 10:09, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Technically, the BMA represents all UK doctors: "The BMA is a professional association and trade union representing and negotiating on behalf of all doctors in the UK."[6] Presumably they view this "represents" as what they aim to do even if you aren't a member. But their membership figures are similar to counts of the number of doctors employed on the NHS but I'm not sure how many doctors are members but perhaps work abroad or are retired. I can't find a recent source commenting on the relative membership size vs NHS doctors, likely because it simply isn't interesting to note. But "medical practitioners" is totally wrong, as there are well over 400,000 nurses and midwives.

The whole "represents" term is problematic wrt this council vote and motion. When Donald Trump "represented" the US on the international stage, no journalist would say "Donald Trump, who represents all citizens of the United States, said...". That would suggest that in this particular statement we know for sure he really is accurately representing them. And we know that is not the case. There's a clear separation that although the president is supposed to represent their citizens, what they actually say and do reflects the fact they are their own person. The proposed text here wrongly associates this council statement with the membership through the idea of "represents". And that's even before we get into the problematic idea that many democratic elections allow people to be elected on a minority of voters or that the BMA council were elected on only 7% of membership voting. So one can argue their position on the council represents the wishes of only a tiny percentage of BMA members.

This is just editorialising to try to enlarge the importance of this BMA motion, which currently is a big fat zero in terms of UK healthcare. -- 13:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC) Colin°^Talk 13:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not seeing how this discussion is going anywhere useful. We have a paragraph that is reliable sourced and neutral. The proposal adds unsourced wording and deviates into trans politics generally. While some editors are joining dots between the Cass Review and political transphobia, the BMA council do not. Their target there is far more likely to be the previous government who enacted the PB ban and routinely played the trans culture war game, but they don't say so neither can we. I see someone has added a "balanced" request that somehow we are to expand on the BMA's very brief statement and reduce the overwhelming criticism that it has provoked both from their own membership and wider in the UK among related medical bodies. But hold on a second. This is an article on the Cass Review, not BMA council activism, not puberty blockers, and perhaps the balance is that we should better describe the review and its implementation, and not focus so much of our time an energy on a small set of complaints which, in the UK at least, are entirely impotent: the BMA council is being absolutely ignored. -- Colin°^Talk 08:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Just a wee reminder. The Cass Review did not recommend a ban on puberty blockers. Indeed it recognised that they were useful for some patients. It called for research into which patients benefited, and the BMA council also call for more research. The bits of the BMA motion that directly refer to the Cass Review are relevant. The confusion between both entirely blocking implementation and also wanting trans healthcare is relevant. But the rest is about the puberty blocker ban and the anti-trans culture war that so dominated the previous government and continues to be a focus of the right wing press. That is not "Cass Review". These things likely belong in articles on puberty blockers, on UK trans politics, on Tory/Labour politics, on the BMA itself, and so on. See WP:COATRACK. -- Colin°^Talk 09:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Btw, I propose the edit notice about "balancing" the BMA motion's detail with critical concerns be removed. We don't "balance" things to be how editors might wish the balance was. Nor to we give weight to minor aspects of an article. The BMA's motion is itself just a few bullet points (vs 400 page Cass Review) and the reception it got was overwhelmingly negative and has been entirely rejected by anyone who matters (NHS England, NHS Scotland, current governments of both nations, the medical bodies that set clinical standards or govern the relevant medical specialities). That's the hard reality and the balance we need to represent. -- Colin°^Talk 09:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)