This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization
@Valereee Is this organization notable? AFAICT, they were founded a few years ago to oppose a conversion therapy ban and hosted one conference that made news. I'd been holding off on writing the article myself bc the sources seemed to poor when I checked a few months ago lol. Looking at the sources in the article:
Source Analysis
Affinity A primary source, that doesn't mention CAN-SG, from an evangelical org opposing all bans on conversion therapy
Pilgrim 2023 only mentions CAN-SG once to say they were founded to oppose the MOUCT They went on to contribute to two activist organisations of gender-critical professionals, extant at the time of writing (‘Thoughtful Therapists’ and the ‘Clinical Advisory Network on Sex and Gender’). (also, this author is generally FRINGE and spends the piece more broadly attacking conversion therapy bans)
The Guardian just says they criticized the WHO The Clinical Advisory Network on Sex and Gender, a network of clinicians mainly in the UK and Ireland looking at the debate over sex and gender in healthcare, questioned why the WHO appeared to be promoting gender-affirming care as always the best approach. “There are no robust randomised-controlled trials supporting gender-affirming medical and surgical interventions, and therefore there are no studies which tell us about the efficacy of these interventions, in children or adults,” the organisation said in a statement. (randomised-controlled trials are generally considered very unethical in this field)
TransLucent Not sure if this is an RS, but only mentions CAN-SG in passing about their conference She is also the keynote speaker at the upcoming conference of the Clinical Advisory Network on Sex and Gender (CAN-SG). While the name of this organisation might suggest it aims to facilitate a clinical consensus in an area characterised by uncertainty and division, the advance publicity for the conference suggests its approach is relentlessly hostile to gender affirming care.
The Times A commentary dripping with transphobia, which, among other things, questions whether it was transphobic for CAN-SG members to misgender their patients
Discounting the SPS and primary sources, we have the Guardian quoting them complaining about WHO[1], a fringe academic source who only says they were founded to oppose the MOUCT[2], and coverage of the controversy over a single conference of theirs in PulseToday[3] and the unreliable for GENSEX Telegraph[4].
Hm, @Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist...you know, I moved it to article space because a particular piece of info I was waiting on happened after a prolonged period, and now that you ask, I'm wondering if I also had not moved it because I wasn't sure it was ready, which is much more typical, and had just forgotten that it wasn't actually X piece of info that was the main issue! lol...let's just move it back to draft? Valereee (talk) 13:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
