Talk:Genspect/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Notability?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anti-Trans

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

'Trans' vs. 'Transgender'

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

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

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

"Discredited"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Short description in lead

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

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

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

HSE is still referring children to ‘unsafe’ UK gender clinic | Ireland | The Sunday Times (thetimes.co.uk)

that article says: "Stella O’Malley is the founder of Genspect, an organisation that advocates for the parents of gender-questioning children"

Seems to me we could use that directly in the lead, but I drop it here first in case anyone disagrees. I'd insert this paraphrase: "Genspect publicly supports parents of children who question their gender." AndyGordon (talk) 17:04, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we can use that in the lead in wikivoice. The Times is adopting thr POV of the organisation here, and that isn't where the BALANCE of the sources rests. Newimpartial (talk) 19:37, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I would like to also add that PFLAG "publicly supports parents of children who question their gender". That is because they provide groups for parents to learn more in a judgement free environment and help them accept their children. That is by no means what Genspect does, so we can see the description is lacking. For a start, many kids of Genspect parents are adults or teens who're very sure of their gender, their parents refusing to accept it doesn't mean they're questioning it themselves. If we're sticking to the BALANCE of the sources and strictly factual non-pr language, the lead should read "Genspect is an organization known for publicly opposing laws banning conversion therapy on the basis of gender identity and the right of people under 25 to transition. They have endorsed disproven scientific theories which suggest transgender children decide to be transgender because of a social contagion, and have allied with Christian right wing groups that oppose LGBT rights".

Later today I'll do some editing on the article to also help make it more chronological and streamlined and up to WP standards. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:13, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Update: Genspect is an organization known for publicly opposing laws banning conversion therapy on the basis of gender identity and the right of people under 25 to transition medically or socially. ... TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:23, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

You have a point and thanks for the suggestion. Still, I don't think there is a balance, and we need to reflect the differing perspectives. I will attempt an encyclopedic list of what sources say about Genspect's purpose. AndyGordon (talk) 08:22, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I made a list in this version of the article:

Genspect - Wikipedia AndyGordon (talk) 13:05, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the sentence in the lead that says "Genspect has been criticized as anti-transgender by advocates for transgender rights, researchers, and academics."

It appears to be supported by two articles, one in OpenDemocracy, the other in LGBTQ News.

But at no point does the first one say or quote that Genspect itself is anti trans. The term is applied to some of the speakers and to Our Duty, but not directly to Genspect.

The second one does quote Jenn Burleton calling Genspect "anti-trans".

Are there any other reliable sources that call Genspect anti-transgender?

If not its completely unbalanced to say so in the lead.

I think we should rewrite the lead based on the sources now listed in the second section, called Purpose, and any other explicit descriptions we can find. AndyGordon (talk) 13:13, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

What I suggested above is not a perspective, it is a statement of fact. Those are all things they do and are known for, which gets us out of the issue of relying on their unreliable self-descriptions. It is completely unbalanced to give them equal footing given the contents of the article describe them overwhelmingly as against scientific medical consensus and opposed to transgender rights.

The purpose section adds little to the article, except for how they've been described or described themselves in off lines that lend a false balance to what serious investigations have described them as. Which independent reliable sources have criticized and pointed out that describing them in their own terms is a warped perspective. As I'll try and explain with sources, there is a big difference between their perspective that they're their for the parents and the reality that they are harming kids and spouting FRINGE nonsense in relation to transgender people.

Re-analyzing the sources:

LGBTQNation: While the group claims that it is welcoming to transgender people (the website notes: “one of our advisors is trans”), it is broadly opposed to gender-affirming care for youth and “Genspect is an anti-trans, ‘gender critical’ organization ideologically affiliated with TERFism, ROGD [Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria], and Alliance Defending Freedom,” Jenn Burleton, program director for the TransActive Gender Center Project and Lewis and Clark, told LGBTQ Nation. “They are promoting ‘workshops’ that appear to be trying to fool people into thinking they are ‘open to gender diversity.’ This tactic is meant to encroach on the work we, and others, do.”

OpenDemocracy: For a start, I'd like to say this is the best SIRS source and the one that goes most into depth about Genspect, and it spends the whole article pointing out their links to conversion therapy. - An NHS psychiatrists’ conference on trans healthcare for young people was postponed at the last minute when whistleblowers pointed out a number of panellists had apparent links to “extremist” anti-trans ideologies. and According to emails seen by openDemocracy, the proposed schedule of speakers included individuals with close links to proponents of anti-trans conversion therapies. Summarizing, Genspect members have fought for Arizona's ban on medicaid for trans healthcare and argued conversion therapy bans should not count "suppression of gender identity" as conversion therapy. Every major medical organization defines conversion therapy to include gender identity. They "stand in full solidarity", their words not mine, with with proponents of anti-trans conversion therapy including Our Duty – a group that recommends talking therapies as a route to “swift desistance from transgender ideation”, which “must be the stated goal of any treatment regimen” for young trans people. They also make false claims that there is “no evidence showing that social or medical transition reduces the risk of suicide among young people with gender dysphoria”.

I would like to add, at what point does opposing bans on conversion therapy for trans people (a position unsupported by any major medical org), standing in "full solidarity" with conversion therapy advocates, opposing the medicaid coverage for trans healthcare, spewing misinformation and positions condemned by scientific consensus, become anti-trans? Like seriously, what is the cutoff? Can we only describe them as such if they jump up and down with a neon sign saying they are? To be fair, they're mostly doing that metaphorically speaking, which makes this rehashing all the more tiring. It's like trying to explain why NARTH is homophobic and doesn't just have a valid perspective to bring to the table.

Telegraph: Two articles were used, both had short snippets from Genspect without any type of analysis. In the first article, a mom says her transgender daughter (who she misgenders) was groomed into it. I shouldn't have to say just how unscientific and transphobic that is. The second telegraph article, Stella O'Malley says they are against the provision of puberty blockers in any case (a position unsupported by any major medical org)

GayCommunityNews: O’Malley is co-author of an Irish Times piece on the topic of conversion therapy for Trans people, which has prompted a boycott organised by the Trans Writers Union signed by 1,400 people, and Trinity News severing professional ties with the paper. Her accreditation body has yet to release a statement condemning conversion therapy. O’Malley is a member of the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine, described by the Trans Safety Network as an “anti-Trans psychiatric and sociological think tank”. She is also a founder of Genspect, an organisation that supports parents who don’t affirm their Transgender children, espousing the pseudoscientific ‘condition’ known as Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD), condemned by WPATH, the American Psychiatric Association and American Psychological Association Genspect spreads disproved misinformation and the creator trying to argue in support of conversion therapy started a boycott by the trans writers union (also students union). Also, "don't affirm their transgender children" is pretty clear about what they do.

PinkNews: The outlet published an article titled “The Battle Over Gender Therapy” Wednesday (15 June) in its New York Times Magazine which uncritically platformed gender-critical groups, vile rhetoric and anti-trans parents. The article claimed there was a “big debate among clinicians” on how they should “respond to the thousands of teenagers who are arriving at their doors” for gender-affirming treatments. The article also uncritically platformed gender-critical group Genspect. Also, parents from Genspect stated “rise in trans-identified teenagers was the result of a ‘gender cult’ – a mass craze” and “rise in trans-identified teenagers was the result of a ‘gender cult’ – a mass craze”.

New York Times: Just discussed above, but also they mentioned the fact Genspect is open that their strategy is to get farther in the liberal media by not outright saying "trans kids are mentally ill". As I source shortly, the author acknowledges the group has engaged in anti-trans activism outside the article.

Medscape: Only part that mentions them and a concrete fact is The forum was convened on what was dubbed #DetransitionAwarenessDay by Genspect, a parent-based organization that seeks to put the brakes on medical transitions for children and adolescents. The group has doubts about the gender-affirming care model supported by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and other medical groups. Ie, the organization is fringe and against scientific consensus.

Trans Safety Network: During the Genspect Launch, they promoted the film "Trans Mission". The only experts spoken to were Paul Hruz, Andre van Mol and Quentin van Meter. All are member of the hate group (as designated not just by common sense but the SPLC) the American College of Pediatricians, and Meter is the president of it. He is also a member of the IFTCC: an organisation who very openly promote conversion therapy for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people (who they refer to variously as "suffering from same sex attraction or gender confusion"). For the record, since the ties between Genspect and SEGM are made apparent here, I could probably pull up about 10 instances of SEGM being described directly as an anti-trans group in reliable sources.

Yale Report: I think it very important to reiterate here that a report in response to attempts to legislate away trans rights in Arizona and Texas, which was published by Yale's School of Medicine and extensively covered in media, stated The core members of SEGM frequently serve together on the boards of other organizations that oppose gender-affirming treatment and, like SEGM, feature biased and unscientific content. These include Genspect, Gender Identity Challenge (GENID), Gender Health Query, Rethink Identity Medicine Ethics, Sex Matters, Gender Exploratory Therapy Team, Gender Dysphoria Working Group, and the Institute for Comprehensive Gender Dysphoria Research. By WP rules, as covered earlier, we can include it, especially since it's already verified by another source and verifiable by simply going to their board members page. Including that the report criticized SEGM but not Genspect (which was described as merely an offshoot of SEGM with the same members and positions) leaves out vital context, which I'll reiterate we are fully free to give.

Texas Observer: Another SIRS source states Bazelon’s article quotes extensively from parents involved in a group called GENSPECT, an organization that opposes gender-affirming care for young people. Some members quoted support banning transition for anyone under 25, which has become a mainstream Republican position. Bazelon noted on Twitter that the group has engaged in anti-trans activism. The article, however, presents them only as a concerned group of parents, ignoring this vital context. The last sentence rings out very clearly. They also then point out how the parents are discussing the disproven ROGD theory in stating their kids turned trans because of the internet.

The Economist: Really only had Genspect railing against the AAP. Frankly, I'm sure someone would cover it if the Flat Earth Society argued NASA needs to review the evidence of the Earth's curvature but anyone serious could ignore them.

Genspect's Website: For the record, having been on Genspect's website and seen them blame Anime for people being trans, it's ridiculously hard to not treat them like unhinged clowns. From here, first they start advancing ROGD but this jumps out: And the parents of these kids all seemed to be noticing the same thing: the new transgender identity followed a heavy period of obsessive social media use. Anime culture seemed especially influential, with many kids devoting huge amounts of time to creating and consuming anime art. It almost seemed to be more important than their real lives.

To recap, multiple sources that go in-depth into Genspect describe it as anti-trans, opposed to gender-affirming care for youth (and medical consensus saying they should get it), and point out it's links to conversion therapy (and anti-LGBT organizations). The sources that don't go into it say it's opposed to gender-affirming care and medical consensus, they just try and cast them as plucky for it instead of deranged. Other reliable sources have pointed out they don't provide any context, then provide it. Genspect has also been shown to have ties to SEGM, an organization which is routinely described as anti-trans.

Overall, even sources that uncritically platform Genspect acknowledge their position is medically FRINGE. Revisiting my earlier suggestion, which cuts the Gordian knot by focusing on their positions and policies instead of PR statements, the lead should read Genspect is known for spreading medical misinformation about transgender healthcare and opposing the medical consensus that affirmation is the best practice. They have publicly opposed laws banning conversion therapy on the basis of gender identity, medicaid coverage for transgender healthcare, and the right of people under 25 to transition medically or socially. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:21, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Dear @TheTranarchist

To be clear, I'm proposing to delete the sentence "Genspect has been criticized as anti-transgender by advocates for transgender rights, researchers, and academics" from the lead because there appears to be only one reliable source that criticizes Genspect as "anti-transgender".

We need to find sentences in the sources that say the group itself is "anti-gender" or a close paraphrase.

I only see the one. And re Our Duty is said to be anti-trans, but not Genspect. Genspect may say they are in "full solidarity" with Our Duty, but it is OR to make the inference that OpenDemocracy would say Genspect is anti-trans. They could have said so in the article but they did not.

Looking at the quotes above the green, the one other place this may have happened is from the Texas Observer, which re the NY Times journalist Emily Bazelon says "Bazelon noted on Twitter that the group has engaged in anti-trans activism." The tweet is now deleted. So the Texas Observer is saying that Bazelon says Genspect engaged in anti-trans activism, but no tweet to verify for some reason. Did she use those words? Dubious to include in Wikipedia.

You say, and I'm sorry to hear the frustration: "Like seriously, what is the cutoff? Can we only describe them as such if they jump up and down with a neon sign saying they are?"

Please see WP:OR. We do indeed need to be very careful not to make original inferences.

Best regards, Andy AndyGordon (talk) 07:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Dear @AndyGordon,

I am fine with rewording it as well, as long as the lead instead focus on their actions. The Gordian Knot I mentioned, don't explicitly say it's anti-trans (true) or pro-kids (false), especially without suppora, just describe what they have done, and the fact their actions are considered medical FRINGE. My objections were more to the biased spin being given in purpose being used to replace it.

That being said, here are three more sources I found to add to the article I somehow missed in an older search: this source says That said, the notorious organization Genspect has gone on the record as referring to 18-25 year olds as “adolescents,” and claiming that this bracket should also be denied gender-affirmative care, and subjected to conversion therapy, despite being legal adults in the wake of this event. This suggests once again that their goal is to expand bans from simply minors to everyone under 25. and this one states Good news out of California: its trans refugee bill, SB 107, was amended and sent for a third reading, the last obstacle before it can be passed. This reading can be viewed here when it is read in assembly, so keep eyes out on the interwebs for when there’s a date available for when that bill gets read. Genspect, which is an advocacy group that is known for its anti-trans stances, anti-trans parent groups, and the whole apparatus are campaigning hard against this bill. This source states The board consists of fifteen members appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Senate. It’s been stacked with anti-trans doctors, some of whom are affiliated with anti-trans fringe movements such as Genspect and the Society for Evidence-based Gender Medicine, known as SEGM. in regards to Florida considering a ban on trans rights.

Also, the OpenDemocracy article literally brings Genspect up first as the first paragraph of the Links to anti-trans advocacy section. The section describes multiple anti-trans actions taken by Genspect, from "full solidarity" with conversion therapists, to preventing kids from socially transitioning, to recommending schools misgender their students, and generally spreads misinformation about trans healthcare.To say the Open Democracy didn't say Genspect is anti-trans is missing the forest through the trees.

For the Texas Observer, here is a link to Bazelon's tweet. Archive.org is a cool tool for future reference. But Bazelon makes it clear what their anti-trans links are (for example them openly saying the only reason they don't say trans people are mentally ill is PR) and campaigning against trans rights. The Texas observer calls that what it is.

This brings it up to five sources directly saying Genspect is anti-trans; more sources we already discussed calling them gender critical (a PC term for anti-trans), and more sources quote experts on record saying they're anti-trans. A lot more sources saying Genspect's positions are medical WP:FRINGE, with unreliable far-right sources much more likely to present that in a positive light and generally reliable sources describing it as anti-trans advocacy and getting into specifics of what they do.

For the record, if you look at the article for NARTH, no similar purpose section exists. What exists their instead is an accounting of their actions and what they're notable for, ie going against the medical consensus and attacking gay rights in print and in court. Genspect attacks trans rights on paper and in court, verified by all sources despite their position on it, and their position is verified FRINGE.

Best, TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:24, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Dear @TheTranarchist

Thanks for the link to Bazelon's tweet which appears to be this:

"I made it clear what Genspect stands for by including comments of members & a post on strategy from an affiliated Substack. Skeptical parents are politically active, testifying in statehouses in favor of banning medical interventions for minors. Leaving them out of the story ..."

She's not saying "anti-trans". AndyGordon (talk) 16:50, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, the article states Bazelon noted on Twitter that the group has engaged in anti-trans activism. Bazelon states parents are testifying in statehouses in favor of banning medical interventions for minors (arguing against medically necessary healthcare is indeed anti-trans). She also states she linked to their substack so people could know who they are, where they say: This has resulted in stopping actual kids from being socially transitioned, in actual schools, which have changed their actual policies on pronouns, bathrooms and changing rooms . They also make it clear they they play into respectability politics to evade criticism.

Bazelon discusses what they did, the Texas Observer classified it as anti-trans. For analogy, if Y said "X noted Z engage in homophobic activism", and X is quoted as saying Z opposes gay marriage, which nobody disagrees they do, it is fairly obvious Y is reliably describing what happened. What I said above therefore holds, that we have 5 sources describing Genspect as anti-trans directly, and more providing verification of their history of such advocacy. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:10, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I've lost track here: which are the 5 sources you say describe Genspect as anti-trans directly? AndyGordon (talk) 17:36, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Open Democracy, The Texas Observer, The Florida Phoenix, and them twice.

That's not counting the reports put out by Yale, Trans Safety Network, or Health Liberation Now, or Transactive Gender Project. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:49, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Update: 6 sources, Here as well: anti-trans fringe groups such as Genspect, which claims many more people detransition than is factual. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:56, 23 August 2022 (UTC)TheTranarchist

OK, at least the Texas Observer, the Florida Phoenix, and them, appear to explicitly call Genspect "anti-trans". I can't access the Florida Phoenix. Could you send the quote?

So, how about in the lead: "Genspect has been criticized as anti-transgender by advocates for transgender rights" with citations to the three above. I don't see academics or researchers saying that, only advocates for trans rights.

In addition, I propose we restore the "Purpose" section as it's a well-sourced listing of how sources have described Genspect. It's useful data for weighing up what sources have to say. And we should put there the sources that say Genspect is anti-trans.

This is a start, but please refer to WP:LEAD - we must make the lead NPOV and it is far from neutral at present.

How about inserting this as a second sentence:

"Genspect was formed to advocate for parents concerned about their children's treatment for gender issues."

We'll get this sorted!

Thanks, Andy AndyGordon (talk) 07:40, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Sure, there are two Phoenix sources covering Genspect involvement and their involvement passing anti-trans laws in Florida.

The one From August 3rd says The [Florida Board of Medicine] consists of fifteen members appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Senate. It’s been stacked with anti-trans doctors, some of whom are affiliated with anti-trans fringe movements such as Genspect and the Society for Evidence-based Gender Medicine, known as SEGM.

The Board of Medicine will consider whether to continue providing gender-affirming care for children and limiting adults’ access to it.

The one from August 23rd says They only wanted to learn more from the experts, they claimed. Board member Patrick Hunter said he would vote to go into rulemaking “just to learn more and hear from everybody.”

Hunter freely and regularly shares “detransition” disinformation on his Twitter account from anti-trans fringe groups such as Genspect, which claims many more people detransition than is factual.

They feigned concern for children seeking hormone blocking medication or hormone replacement therapy, and ultimately ignored pleas from scores of transgender and nonbinary patients and supportive parents and family members who detailed how helpful the treatments have been for kids with gender dysphoria.

To say it's only trans rights advocates flies in the face of the evidence and is a little insulting as it implies "trans people have rights" is not a NPOV. It is open fact that their positions are against medical consensus, and they verifiably have pushed for anti-trans legislation (ie stopping bans on conversion therapy for trans people and fighting against public health coverage for trans people). OpenDemocracy, the Texas Observer, Florida Phoenix, Vice, Them, and a team of experts from Yale working with the legal team can't all be discounted as just trans advocates. Would you describe NARTH as an organization criticized for it's homophobia and conversion therapy endorsements by homosexual rights advocates, or an organization known for endorsing conversion therapy, a psuedoscientific practice...

Your suggestion: Genspect is a gender critical organisation co-founded in June 2021 by psychotherapist Stella O'Malley and other members of the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine. Genspect was formed to advocate for parents concerned about their children's treatment for gender issues. Genspect has been criticized as anti-transgender by advocates for transgender rights, researchers, and academics fails to capture the fact they have actively campaigned against the rights of both transgender minors and adults and support a fringe position relative to medical consensus (and basic human decency). Hopefully we can agree on the relatively straightforward fact you should accept your transgender children. Also, they attack the right of adults between 18-25 to transition and partner with anti-LGBT and anti-choice orgs, do you not see how blatantly fucked up that is? To then imply they're just parents concerned about their children?

I propose the lead should read: Genspect is an organization known for advocating against transgender rights, co-founded in June 2021 by psychotherapist Stella O'Malley and other members of the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine. They are known for spreading misinformation about transgender healthcare and opposing the right of those under 25 to transition, laws banning conversion therapy on the basis of gender identity, and public health coverage for transgender healthcare at any age. Their positions stand in direct opposition to the medical consensus from organizations such as ... which state that transgender people should have access to healthcare and are best supported by being affirmed in their identity. This version does not describe them as anything and simply states what they are known for, leading to a NPOV. See NARTH's lead for a similar example. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:10, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand why this is being talked about again. We have a good compromise version in place already which we reached after discussion and editing, in which you participated. The NARTH comparison is apt because the tone there is better than this proposal. It doesn't say that NARTH is "known for advocating against gay rights" and "for spreading misinformation". It sticks to the specifics of what exactly they advocate and what the mainstream view of that is. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:54, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

cancelled NHS conference

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

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

I've added Genspect's response to the criticism already noted in our article. AndyGordon (talk) 17:14, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

General comments

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

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

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

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

@Swannieriv @RoxySaunders

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Incomprehensible

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

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

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

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

O'Malley: "Wikipedia can be gamed and trans activists use Wikipedia as a way to attack Genspect and myself""

Stella O'Malley is complaining in a public statement about this page:

"Wikipedia can be gamed and trans activists use Wikipedia as a way to attack Genspect and myself. We are not given the opportunity to argue the points as the moderators always side with trans activists, no matter how many quality references they are supplied with. Consequently, articles by gender extremists such as Lee Leveille, are favoured over the more conventional Sunday Times."

Telling the Truth in a Time of Deceit (Part 1): Stella O’Malley’s Statement on Conversion Therapy - Genspect

I have very limited time to edit Wikipedia but I'm concerned about the state of this page and I wonder if anyone can suggest how to escalate and get it into good shape. AndyGordon (talk) 08:07, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Given the evident POV the Times has adopted on these issues, I question the premise. Newimpartial (talk) 10:28, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

The Times is fine as a source; the only sources calling it unreliable are the usual ones that have their own strong POV. Certainly one cannot argue that The Times has more of a POV than those other sources. healthliberationnow.com is also not a reliable source - indeed its very name suggests it exists to fight against the consensus of MEDRS - but I don't see it currently being cited here. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:48, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't know about what you're claiming for the Times. WP:MANDY pretty clearly applies. :p Newimpartial (talk) 00:34, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Honestly I don't think there's much we need to do. Genspect have received a lot of criticism in the media for their organisational stances and statements. Outside of a few positive bits of coverage in The Times, the only other positive coverage I can find for them based on a quick search are all from sources we consider unreliable. The same is broadly true for O'Malley herself. This is I think a feature and not a bug, as both Genspect and O'Malley regularly take positions that run counter to what mainstream medical sources state about trans and non-binary healthcare, particularly with regards to rejection of the gender affirmative model as O'Malley states in her blog post linked above.

I'd also point out that O'Malley is very much stretching the truth here when it comes to the use of Health Liberation Now on wiki; the specific article she links has only ever been used on this talk page, and the site itself has only ever been used in 4 talk page discussions, one user subpage, and one transclusion of the same user subpage. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:16, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

And just to really drive the point home, I did an insource search for Lee Leveille. While my Wiki-search-fu is a little weak, a related Google search confirms that the only article that mentions Leveille is Emily Bazelon, where Leveille's name appears as part of a quotation. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:31, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Purpose Section

What is the point of this section? Instead of just stating who they are and what they do with a single NPOV description (which is what the lead is for), it creates a false balance by saying the same thing a bunch of times in slightly different ways and equating in-depth reviews of Genspect with one off mentions.

They all agree Genspect is a gender critical international organization for parents who refuse to affirm their transgender children. While not all characterize it as such, medical consensus and the more reliable sources describe it as primarily engaged in anti-trans advocacy/activism. They are known to spread misinformation, which has been verified. Some present that neutrally, some critically, but medical consensus is that children should be affirmed so that is the POV we should be presenting instead of the FRINGE position that refusing to support transgender children helps them instead of hurting them.

If Genspect "advocates for the parents of gender-questioning children" - what right of the parents are they advocating for except their "right" to refuse to accept their children? In reliable sources what do they advocate if not restrictions on the right of trans people?

Also, OpenDemocracy calls them an international alliance of so-called ‘gender-critical’ parents, counsellors, educators and activists who “advocate for the parents of gender-questioning children and young people”. It quotes them, then starts analyzing all it's anti-trans links. As it appears on Wikipedia right now is completely out of the context of the overwhelming way the article itself characterized Genspect.

I propose we remove this section and focus on a single NPOV description in the lead. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:29, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

How WP:NPOV actually works is that we include all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. We are not to deduce what we think is the singular correct view and present that only when there are multiple competing significant views. This section did a good job of laying that out and should be restored. If tweaks are needed that's one thing, but removal is not warranted. Crossroads ^-talk- 07:25, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

How WP:PROFRINGE works is The neutral point of view policy requires that all majority and significant-minority positions be included in an article. However, it also requires that they not be given undue weight. A conjecture that has not received critical review from the scientific community or that has been rejected may be included in an article about a scientific subject only if other high-quality reliable sources discuss it as an alternative position. Ideas supported only by a tiny minority may be explained in articles devoted to those ideas if they are notable.

What is the medical consensus on the right of adults under 25 to receive trans healthcare? The right of minors to transition? The validity of the ROGD theory? The definition of conversion therapy?

To save you time: they should have it, they should have it, it's pseudoscience, and trying to suppress sexual orientation OR gender identity.

Genspect's positions on all these topics? They shouldn't, they shouldn't, it's bold truth to power, and sexual orientation only since trans people don't deserve that right.

By my count, that's 4 instances of Genspect opposing medical consensus on transgender rights (and if you read the article you see they fight hard to put their misinfo into law and that's primarily what they're known for).

To be clear, what "multiple competing significant views" backed by reliable sources do you think there are here? Since as far as I can see the simple fact their position is FRINGE is verifiable, no matter what some sources uncritically presenting them describe them as. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:26, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Crossroads, did you cease to understand WP:ONUS at some point this summer, and I somehow missed that development? Newimpartial (talk) 16:13, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Dear @Newimpartial

Your explanation for deleting the section is: "No section that gives pride of place to the Daily Telegraph's opinion on this topic can ever represent NPOV"

With respect, that's not a reason to delete but perhaps to reorder if you think the order matters.

How about we restore the section and then you re-arrange as you see fit?

Many thanks, Andy AndyGordon (talk) 06:03, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I have another idea. How about we discuss a draft text first here on Talk, and only add to the article when the text has consensus? Newimpartial (talk) 13:47, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I would restore exactly the text in the Purpose section here: Genspect - Wikipedia

I think it would be most practical to restore and for you to make changes.

Still, what would you like to change and why?

Many thanks, Andy AndyGordon (talk) 17:03, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Since no reasons being given to change the content, I am going to restore. AndyGordon (talk) 09:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

First of all, as I said before, it is massively UNDUE to start with The Telegraph. So don't do that. Newimpartial (talk) 10:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I have tried to reorganize the section so it is less terrible, without losing content. This process would have been less unpleasant if done in Talk, however. And unilaterally restoring one's own preferred content in article space is seldom the most appropriate way to reach consensus IMO, satisfying as it may be to the back brain. Newimpartial (talk) 10:49, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Dear @Newimpartial

Thank you for your edits. We should also include what Genspect themselves have to say.

I actually find the editing experience is easier in the article itself rather than in the talk page. I did take your comment about the Telegraph into account.

I waited three days during which there was no discussion.

Best regards, Andy AndyGordon (talk) 10:55, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@AndyGordon: Honestly the issue with the Purpose section, as I mentioned above, is the disproportionate weight it gives to PR-sanitized statements. This is made more ridiculous when the organization has openly stated such PR sanitized statements are part of its tactics and independent sources have concurred. Overall, the section repeats the same thing multiple times except spends the first half framing it as fine instead of the medically recognized junk science it is.

For reference, NARTH has no Purpose section citing people saying both NARTH is an organization of concerned doctors and NARTH is a conversion therapy advocating org, since only one is based on fact. We don't have a section where we uncritically quote NARTH's founder as to why the organization exists and try and balance the critical and supportive views as if they're equally valid.

Looking at the sources, and what they discuss:

The NYT describes it as "critical of social and medical transition" (a position unsupported by medical consensus) and describes how they try and infiltrate liberal spaces with flowery language.

PinkNews describes it as gender critical, but also "widely reviled" and goes into their anti-trans stances by linking tweets and articles. One quote from an ex-detransitioner who's written about the movement's ties to conversion therapy was The NYT just platformed a group made up of transphobic parents & conversion therapists who've written about how they have the same end goals as hardline trans eliminationists but moderate their views to try to break into the mainstream. This is dangerous & irresponsible." The source has already been mentioned numerous times, see the NYT or earlier discussions for reference.

LGBTQNation states While the group claims that it is welcoming to transgender people (the website notes: “one of our advisors is trans”), it is broadly opposed to gender-affirming care for youth. The article then goes into how gender affirming care is the medical consensus.

The Sunday Times and Times "describe Genspect as an organisation that advocates for the parents of gender-questioning children." The Daily Telegraph describes them as a "group supporting parents troubled by the gender-related medical treatment received by their children". Absent is the fact that "advocacy" translates only into opposing transgender people's rights. You can frame refusing to accept a gay cis child as advocating for parents' rights and etc, but that wouldn't mean at the end of they day you weren't being homophobic or attacking that child's rights in the name of the parents. Literally what other parental right are they arguing for if not the "right" to not accept your child? More than that the "right" to insist other people don't accept your child as evidenced by their attacks on school's supporting trans kids.

Medscape describes them as a parent-based organization that seeks to put the brakes on medical transitions for children and adolescents. The group has doubts about the gender-affirming care model supported by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and other medical groups., ie opposed to medical consensus.

Gay Community News describes them as "an organisation that supports parents who don't affirm their transgender children, espousing the pseudoscientific 'condition' known as Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD), condemned by WPATH, the American Psychiatric Association and American Psychological Association. which is factually true on both counts.

Open Democracy describes them as an international alliance that works with proponents of anti-trans conversion therapy and gives plenty of sources. For the record, that they work with proponents of anti-trans conversion therapy is completely factual, and does not need to be attributed.

Stella O'Malley is not an independent source, and to help families manage gender distress in a climate free of rigid, ideologically motivated prescriptions means affirmation according to medical consensus, not trying to convince people they aren't trans if they want to transition. Her position is ideological, that trans people deserve to be listened to and get affirming care is completely evidence based. However, we don't present that there. Also, kindred alliances doesn't quite capture the fact that SEGM and Genspect share 7/11 members, or that people have gone in-depth about how astro-turfed the organizations are. I remind you of the statement by the Yale Report finding most of these organizations are controlled by the same small crowd of discredited anti-trans activists. Also, the article has her supporting Our Duty again on record. I don't need to remind you who they are.

Also missing are the sources describing Genspect as an anti-trans advocacy group/involved in anti-trans activism, ie the Florida Phoenix ("anti-trans fringe group"), Them ("an advocacy group that is known for its anti-trans stances") and the Texas Observer ("Bazelon noted on Twitter that the group has engaged in anti-trans activism. The article, however, presents them only as a concerned group of parents, ignoring this vital context").

Overall, all sources listed agree Genspect is an international alliance (though some other sources help explore how astro-turfed it really is) that opposes the right of those under 25 to transition medically or socially and campaigns against transgender rights. The fact they present as merely concerned parents to hide their advocacy is also supported by reliable sources.

In short, the entire section is already summarized by the lead, and it reads like undue weight given to defending Genspect in a misapplication of NPOV (which states we make clear what is pseudoscience and what is not, not just list everything anyone has said about them and act like the end product is necessarily neutral).

Considering that, what reason is there to keep it? What does it add to the article? Is their position fringe or not? Are there any similar organizations where we lay out the article similarly (if you can't think of any, would you repeat this format of uncritical support paired with critical analysis in a section titled "Purpose" for NARTH)? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:36, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree the section is problematic, and would prefer to remove it and workshop it here. O'Malley's Quillette piece seems particularly undue, but some of the other sourcing is at least dubious. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Dear @TheTranarchist

Please forgive me if I'm wrong, but I think that you, in good faith, are misunderstanding what "neutral point of view" means for Wikipedia. Please see this essay: WP:YESBIAS To quote from that essay: "NPOV (Neutral Point of View) is our most sacred policy, yet its use of the word "neutral" is constantly misunderstood by editors and visitors who feel that NPOV occupies some sort of "No Point Of View" middle ground between biased points of view. Points of view and criticisms are by nature not neutral, and all types of biased points of view must be documented, often using biased sources, so the resulting content should not be neutral or free of bias."

See also the comment by @Crossroads earlier in this thread.

When you summarize your message by saying "In short, the entire section is already summarized by the lead" as if it should be dropped, you have things the wrong way round. As per WP:LEAD "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article."

Please include more material or rephrase sentence by sentence.

Re Quillette as noted in my edit log, Quillette is WP:GUNREL which says "self-published or user-generated content authored by established subject-matter experts is also acceptable." She is a published SME on Genspect and its area. See also WP:SELFPUBLISH.

Best regards and thank you, Andy AndyGordon (talk) 16:53, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I think the "organization's founder is a subject-matter expert" argument is a non-starter. Here, it would apparently lead us to overweight O'Malley's views over those published in independent, reliable, secondary sources. Across the project, it would lead to uncountable poor sources suddenly dominating the narrative about every controversial person or group. I'm not opposed to a short statement of O'Malley's (or any spokesperson's) view on the group, but it should be cited to an independent, reliable source. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:48, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I concur with Firefangledfeathers with regards "organisation founder is a subject-matter expert". As such I've removed this addition, as it seems massively undue, fails WP:SPS, and reads akin to a mission statement. I've left the short statement from O'Malley on the founding, as it is sourced to The Telegraph, though I wouldn't be opposed to also removing it for other reasons. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Firefangledfeathers, TheTranarchist and Newimpartial. The purpose section should be removed, and workshopped on the talk page to see if any of it can be salvaged, though I am doubtful that it could be reformed into an acceptable state. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:25, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I want to thank @X-Editor: for changing it into a reception section, that helps maintain a more NPOV and clear up the page. It could do with some more descriptions since more have been made so I'll try and add those in as many are present in other parts of the article and contain factual criticisms. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:51, 29 August 2022 (UTC)TheTranarchist

No problem. X-Editor (talk) 00:22, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with @TheTranarchist - thank you! AndyGordon (talk) 07:19, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Anti-Trans Revisited

Relisting this since the original discussion is rather lengthy:

First, here are the relevant sources describing Genspect as anti-trans:

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

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

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

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

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

The Florida Phoenix on August 3rd says The [Florida Board of Medicine] consists of fifteen members appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Senate. It’s been stacked with anti-trans doctors, some of whom are affiliated with anti-trans fringe movements such as Genspect and the Society for Evidence-based Gender Medicine, known as SEGM.

The Florida Phoenix from August 23rd says They only wanted to learn more from the experts, they claimed. Board member Patrick Hunter said he would vote to go into rulemaking “just to learn more and hear from everybody.” Hunter freely and regularly shares “detransition” disinformation on his Twitter account from anti-trans fringe groups such as Genspect, which claims many more people detransition than is factual.

Them says That said, the notorious organization Genspect has gone on the record as referring to 18-25 year olds as “adolescents,” and claiming that this bracket should also be denied gender-affirmative care, and subjected to conversion therapy, despite being legal adults in the wake of this event. This suggests once again that their goal is to expand bans from simply minors to everyone under 25. and also states in another article Good news out of California: its trans refugee bill, SB 107, was amended and sent for a third reading, the last obstacle before it can be passed. This reading can be viewed here when it is read in assembly, so keep eyes out on the interwebs for when there’s a date available for when that bill gets read. Genspect, which is an advocacy group that is known for its anti-trans stances, anti-trans parent groups, and the whole apparatus are campaigning hard against this bill.

Update (9/12/2022): Outsports describes them as the “gender critical” anti-trans organization Genspect because of their farcical attempts to argue trans women have an unfair advantage in, wait for it....., snooker. Why? Long arms (since tall women don't exist apparently) and testosterone adding to spatial awareness (which even if true wouldn't apply to someone already on estrogen). God it's obvious they care more about attacking trans people than anything useful or even vaguely related to scientific reasoning. Nothing misogynistic or bio-essentialist about constantly arguing half of the population was born inherently better at every type of sport than any member of the other half. Excuse me while I use sign up for the snooker championships since it's apparently so easy.

WP:PROFRINGE states The neutral point of view policy requires that all majority and significant-minority positions be included in an article. However, it also requires that they not be given undue weight. A conjecture that has not received critical review from the scientific community or that has been rejected may be included in an article about a scientific subject only if other high-quality reliable sources discuss it as an alternative position. Ideas supported only by a tiny minority may be explained in articles devoted to those ideas if they are notable.

MOS:LABEL states Make sure, as well, that reliable sources establish the existence of a controversy and that the term is not used to grant a fringe viewpoint undue weight.

WP:EVALFRINGE states Many encyclopedic topics can be evaluated from a number of different perspectives, and some of these perspectives may make claims that lack verification in research, that are inherently untestable, or that are pseudoscientific. In general, Wikipedia should always give prominence to established lines of research found in reliable sources and present neutral descriptions of other claims with respect to their historical, scientific, and cultural prominence.

Update (9/12/2022): WP:BIAS/WP:SBEXT states Representation within sources is not uniform due to societal realities, and the external lack of coverage results in an internal lack of coverage. A 2015 survey of material from 2000 U.S. newspapers and online news found that ... the persistent social realities of acute gender inequalities at the top in politics, the business world, and sports translate into highly imbalanced gender coverage patterns. Generally speaking, what I've noticed on Wikipedia is transgender rights are considered a POV and not something to be supported, reflective of larger biases in society. What that really means is that transgender editors end up spending a lot of their time arguing against hidden faces opposite screens that enjoy playing devil's advocate for anti-trans organizations. Genspect literally only attacks transgender rights and spreads misinformation about trans people. They partner with far right groups, advocate conversion therapy, and try to forcibly detransition trans people. This is all verified. Honestly, it's tiring bullshit trying to explain why trans people are human and why arguing trans people should be forcibly detransitioned or subject to conversion therapy is bad or even, god forbid we use the statement of fact, "anti-trans/transphobic".

That their positions are against scientific consensus and detrimental to the health and well-being of trans people is verifiable fact.

@X-Editor: What is the cutoff for describing an organization as anti-trans? Must every source describe them as such, or just enough? Is there a percentage cutoff or does quality of sources matter (ie is a one line mention not describing them as anti-trans equal weight with a source investigating all their actions and saying they're anti-trans)? In general, do you have the source count/analysis and wikipolicy to justify "known for anti-trans advocacy" being removed despite well supported by sources? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:44, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for providing some more sources. I would say I now support readding the anti-trans descriptor, but I would like to hear what others have to say first before potentially readding it. After reading the comments below, I now disagree with adding the descriptor. X-Editor (talk) 00:22, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

The only sources that directly call Genspect anti-trans in their own voice are Them and the Florida Phoenix (a magazine with a 'progressive' POV). Both of these are very much biased sources. Meanwhile, many other sources like the NYT have covered them and refrained from such a descriptor. Stating it in wikivoice is therefore WP:UNDUE. Your references to FRINGE related policies don't justify that phrase because that particular descriptor (as opposed to specific stances on medical transition) is a matter of sociopolitics, not science vs pseudoscience. You've compared this article to NARTH several times now, but such a comparison further rules out the descriptor because we don't describe NARTH as "anti-gay", let alone in the first sentence. It would be bad writing and cherry-picking sources. Stick to the facts that all sources agree on: Genspect is gender-critical, believes XYZ about medical gender transition, and medical organizations instead say ABC about medical transition. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I'd suggest including the quote "anti-trans fringe movements" from Florida Phoenix in Reception, alongside the quote from Them. (I'd do so myself but I don't have access to the Phoenix.)

But I agree with @Crossroads that it can't be said in wikivoice. AndyGordon (talk) 07:30, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Crossroads, you appear to be nitpicking a distinction between Genspect being an anti-trans organization and the anti-trans parents and anti-trans article associated with it, the extremely anti-trans voices funding it and its anti-trans links, as described by the majority of those sources that do not refer to Genspect directly as "anti-trans". How would you propose to respect the WP:WEIGHT of this coverage and avoid WHITEWASHING, particularly in the context where no sources whatsoever have, to my knowledge, been produced that contest the assertion that Genspect is "anti-trans". The text you have just proposed is quite transparent whitewashing, but I have confidence that you can do better. Newimpartial (talk) 21:11, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

RFC

Should we describe Genspect as anti-trans in the lead? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 02:22, 20 September 2022 (UTC)TheTranarchist

I don't understand what you want to do ie what text do you want to put into the lead?

I agree of course that the WP:LEAD should emphasise material "reflecting it importance to the topic".

Our Reception section covers what the RS say about the org, including mentions of "anti trans". I support a neutral summary of what's in Reception. AndyGordon (talk) 07:52, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support I've already laid out the sources describing them as anti-trans above, but wish to discuss it more in detail here.

First, matter of factly, they are anti-trans. It's blindingly obvious from just the content of the article. Or is it not actually transphobic to:

1) Oppose bans against conversion therapy targeting trans people

2) Fight for the forced detransition of transgender people of every age (see Arizona and Florida) with anti-LGBT hate groups such as the Alliance Defending Freedom

3) Fight schools providing a safe environment for transgender students, insisting they out them to parents and misgender/deadname them instead

4) Support ROGD, which no medical organization recognizes as even approaching scientific and completely detached from the lived experiences of trans people

5) Misgender a transgender young adult and say she was groomed into thinking she were trans in their debut.

5.5) Compare being transgender to being pedophilic O'Malley, the founder, has only been quoted doing so, referenced in some sources in the article but not the article itself. Also quoted stating preventing medical transition is the goal. Whether we can include those is the subject of another discussion.

Note, every single one of these has been classified by medical organizations as harmful to trans people and runs directly contrary to medical consensus on best treatment. Further note, they have partnered with more hate groups and opposed transgender rights in more situations, there's currently a discussion on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard over whether we can include those.

Second, I wish to do a quick review of the sources.

First, the ones critical of Genspect

A team of subject matter experts wrote for the Yale School of Medicine in response to various anti-trans bills across the U.S. and described them as a small group of repeat players in anti-trans activities who oppose gender-affirming treatment and, like SEGM, feature biased and unscientific content.

Open Democracy describes them as closely linked to anti-trans conversion therapy and anti-trans advocacy and goes into depth about their ties and advocacy.

Gay Community News notes they espouse pseudoscience and refuse to affirm their children in an article about how trans youth face difficulty transitioning.

Pink News criticizes the anti-trans NYT article that presented them uncritically, and quotes a tweet which describes them as anti-trans parents, funded by anti-trans voices, and points out the fact the founder compared being trans to being pedophilic (which she has, also saying trans girls are suffering from porn-induced combo Autogynophilia and ROGD).

The Texas Observer in an article critical of the NYT coverage states Bazelon noted on Twitter that the group has engaged in anti-trans activism. The article, however, presents them only as a concerned group of parents, ignoring this vital context. They link to a tweet where bazelon states I made it clear what Genspect stands for by including comments of members & a post on strategy from an affiliated Substack. Skeptical parents are politically active, testifying in statehouses in favor of banning medical interventions for minors.. That substack has them lay out their strategy of not calling trans kids deluded or mentally ill for better PR and hiding behind a token trans member of the board so they can't be called transphobic.

The Florida Phoenix (in two articles) describes them as an anti-trans fringe movement and anti-trans fringe group which overexxagerates the rates of detransition

Them (in two articles) describes them as a notorious organization that has gone on record stating trans people between 18-25 should be denied gender affirming care and subject to conversion therapy

Outsports described them as the “gender critical” anti-trans organization Genspect

LGBTQNation states While the group claims that it is welcoming to transgender people (the website notes: “one of our advisors is trans”), it is broadly opposed to gender-affirming care for youth. The article then goes into how gender affirming care is the medical consensus and quotes an expert calling them an anti-trans, ‘gender critical’ organization ideologically affiliated with TERFism, ROGD [Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria], and Alliance Defending Freedom

Now, ones uncritical of Genspect

Please note, none of these actually go into depth about Genspect itself, just quote them.

The NYT describes it as "critical of social and medical transition" (a position unsupported by medical consensus) and describes how they try and infiltrate liberal spaces with flowery language.

The Sunday Times and Times "describe Genspect as an organisation that advocates for the parents of gender-questioning children." The Daily Telegraph describes them as a "group supporting parents troubled by the gender-related medical treatment received by their children". The only right of parents they argue for is for parents to decide the gender of the children. These articles are paywalled so please feel free to include whatever else they said about Genspect.

Medscape describes them as a parent-based organization that seeks to put the brakes on medical transitions for children and adolescents. The group has doubts about the gender-affirming care model supported by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and other medical groups., ie opposed to medical consensus, which supports the right of trans youth to transition.

The Telegraph misgenders a transgender girl and says she was groomed...

Sideswipe9th put it best when she said Genspect have received a lot of criticism in the media for their organisational stances and statements. Outside of a few positive bits of coverage in The Times, the only other positive coverage I can find for them based on a quick search are all from sources we consider unreliable. The same is broadly true for O'Malley herself. This is I think a feature and not a bug, as both Genspect and O'Malley regularly take positions that run counter to what mainstream medical sources state about trans and non-binary healthcare, particularly with regards to rejection of the gender affirmative model as O'Malley states in her blog post linked above.

In short, numerous sources describe them as anti-trans, some sources don't, but they verifiably are opposed to various transgender rights (friendly reminder, transgender people are people actually effected by having or not having rights, so this isn't just some philosophical debate). Frankly, it's sickening anti-trans is considered by some to be a non-neutral descriptor of an organization which has pushed things like forced detransition, but what do I know, I just live in fear of it every day. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 04:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)TheTranarchist

The 5.5 points you mention above don't all seem to be supported in the text of the article. We are required per policy to write with an impartial tone, which I will emphasize is more conducive to convincing skeptical viewers to actually read the article and learn the sourced facts you presumably want them to read. It looks to me like something like "Genspect is a gender-critical organization that advocates against the gender-affirmative care model..." more closely summarizes the full range of sources above. And "anti-trans" would be fine with in-text attribution and/or referring to their links/ties. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:43, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

You're right, thanks for pointing that out, I'll update them to match. That they compare being trans to pedophilia is just supported by 1) a source quoted in the article and 2) quotes from O'Malley as sourced in HLN. The mom was only speaking to launch the mark of Genspect and set the tone for them.

Now, Genspect is a gender-critical organization that advocates against the gender-affirmative care model... doesn't quite cover the fact they forcibly detransition people, pushing laws that strip transgender healthcare, which is medically recognized as necessary, from the poorest and most marginalized and force even the most privileged trans people to flee their homes. That they attack the rights of transgender children to be safe in their schools, and allow parents to insist a school must misgender and dead-name their transgender child against their will. Notice, they aren't so much advocating against a certain kind of healthcare but any trans healthcare. When you get down to it, you know who that materially effects, as has been pointed out by multiple reliable sources? Trans people. "Gender-critical" and "the gender affirimative care model" are ridiculously devoid of crucial context and whitewash what they do.

On the other hand, Genspect is an anti-trans organization known for partnering with anti-LGBT hate groups to criminalize and restrict access transgender healthcare sticks more closely to the weight of the sources and reality. Each bit is verified in the article, that a minority of sources in the article sanitize them, don't describe their anti-trans actions as such or quote them without covering their actual actions doesn't matter. It's based off a summary of the reliable sources and provides a much more in-depth view. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 00:59, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

• Yes. Per TheTranarchist. It would be a NPOV violation to not describe them as anti-trans. NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:02, 21 September 2022 (UTC) (Summoned by bot)
• Yes per my prior contributions, TheTranarchist, and FormalDude. There are precious few positive sources on Genspect, and only one of them appears to be reliable (coverage in The Times). Conversely there are less favourable terms than "anti-trans" that we could use to describe the organisation and that are supported by reliable sources, but on balance I think "anti-trans" is the one with the most widespread support. Anything less than this would be non-neutral relative to the weight of the reliable sources published about Genspect. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:28, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
• Yes. It's accurate and supported by realiable sources, and downplaying the fact that Genspect is anti-trans makes this article biased. PBZE (talk) 03:02, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
• The Reception section, as written, does not indicate anti-trans is widely applied among reliable sources. I would oppose adding that descriptor based on our own analysis; that kind of OR significantly undermines an article. Let the facts speak for themselves about this organization's character.--Trystan (talk) 13:50, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

  That is a very fair point (in regards to The Reception section, as written, does not indicate anti-trans is widely applied among reliable sources). However, If I may, I would like to put forward that the reception section gives a false balance and distracts from the content of the article without accurately framing the sources. I'll try and fix the article a little more to reflect it, but first lay out the issues with it and how that warps the true reception below.

How each source in reception actually describes Genspect

1) Medscape describes what they do (partially, reminder that verifiably attack the rights of adults as well, not just children and adolescents), and the article points out that their position is against medical consensus. That doesn't oppose anti-trans, adds to it if anything. 2) Medpage quotes them saying it's a "wider range of treatment options", despite the fact they seek to restrict access instead of proposing anything new, which is presumably why they quote them instead of making a judgement in their own words. IT also focuses on the medical support for transition and how it would effect trans people to lose healthcare, and called them a small group claiming to be sidelined. IE, medically fringe. 3) The NYT gets a line of coverage in that section while ignoring that the body covers how multiple groups criticized them for presenting them uncritically (for example, the Texas Observer quote I mentioned, as well as Pink News). 4-5) The Sunday Times and Times have been repeatedly criticized for their own anti-trans bias. What right of parents do they actually advocate for? Also, how is stripping all coverage of transgender healthcare at any page a parent's right? 6) Same goes for the Daily Telegraph. The way the sources describe them is obviously untrue as it frames them in a FRINGE way that ignores the majority of their campaigning. 7) The economist doesn't actually cover any of Genspect's actions, and being an international group does not preclude them from being anti-trans. 8) Open democracy spends a large chunk of an article pointing out Genspect's anti-trans advocacy and links to conversion therapists. Also that they spread medical misinformation. Please note, Open Democracy was the key WP:SIRS source that established this organization's notability in the first talk page discussion, as it discussed Genspect in-depth, and none of the others in this paragraph meet the criteria as they only provided one line mentions or quotes. 9) PinkNews called the NYT article anti-trans because they uncritically platformed gender-critical group Genspect as well as their anti-trans parents, quoting multiple tweets describing them as anti-trans and linking to research by Health Liberation Now in the form of this article. 10) LGBTNation described them as "gender crititical" in quotes, not their own words, stated While the group claims that it is welcoming to transgender people (the website notes: “one of our advisors is trans”), it is broadly opposed to gender-affirming care for youth before citing that the majority of trans children are medically recognized to be helped by such treatment, spent the article bringing up concerns with them and quoting experts calling them anti-trans and saying they push propaganda and scare tactics. 11) Them describes them as anti-trans and pushers of conversion therapy. 12) Gay Community News describes them as supporting parents who hurt their children and espouse pseudoscience condemned by multiple major medical orgs. 13) The Florida Phoenix describes them as anti-trans twice.

Add all this to the reception in the sources not included but mentioned in my earlier comments (such as Outsports calling them anti-trans, subject matter experts from Yale's school of medicine calling them anti-trans, and the Texas observer saying they've engaged in anti-trans activism) and the overarching picture of how they've been recognized is clear as it is the most common descriptor which appears in the most reliable sources.

The reception section skirts from the fact that some sources quote them without really describing what they do, and the ones that do usually use anti-trans or describe their actions as such. Not all sources would have to call an organization opposing gay marriage and discrimination protections anti-LGBT for us to use it factually. Letting the facts speak for themselves, is "anti-trans" more biased than "gender-critical", which has far much less support in reception? More importantly, not just reception is important, in terms of what they've factually done and how medical organizations view that, generally every other section in the article is about how they've attacked the rights of transgender people. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:18, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

• Not in the first sentence and only with in-text attribution. Otherwise it reads tendentiously and turns off readers, in violation of WP:IMPARTIAL. It also is not representative of the range of sources above. Much better would be something like "Genspect is a gender-critical organization that advocates against the gender-affirmative care model..." Then from there you can say who they've partnered with, how they've been criticized, etc. The status quo is fine too. Since you've compared this group to NARTH, note how much better that lead reads without "anti-gay" crammed in the first possible spot, and yet is still 100% accurate in explaining what they really do. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:27, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

  Is there a policy-relevant reason you are pushing for more poorly-sourced descriptors in the place of better-sourced ones? Newimpartial (talk) 16:53, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

  As far as I can tell, only 1 source, Pink News, describes them as gender critical in their own words, LGBT Nation and Them describe Genspect as "gender critical" in quotes (with LGBT nation then quoting an expert saying they're anti-trans). 4 sources describe Genspect as anti-trans, the Florida Phoenix twice, Outsports, and PinkNews (in reference to the parents speaking for them). 4 describe them as known for anti-trans advocacy/stances/acticivism (no source says they're known for gender-critical advocacy/stances): The Texas Observer, Them, Open Democracy, the researchers from the Yale School of Medicine.

  Gender-critical reads a lot tendentiously given that distribution as it is not supported or often used in sources, turns off readers, and does not match WP:BIAS or WP:FRINGE, which state that a minority of sources not describing pseudoscience as such does not mean we have to give them equal weight. Note, the article on the Alliance Defending Freedom opens with supports restricting rights and protections for LGBTQ people. See how the article isn't ruined by describing what they do? Genspect is widely known to support restricting rights and protections of trans people, yet we don't describe them as such. Anti-trans specifically is not needed, as long as it is acknowledged the organization fundamentally opposes the rights of transgender people, not just advocates against the gender-affirmative care model as you keep putting it, whitewashing their opposition to a certain kind of people's rights as philosophical opposition to just some certain form of healthcare. I maintain Genspect is an anti-trans organization known for partnering with anti-LGBT hate groups to criminalize and restrict access to transgender healthcare more accurately captures the distribution of sources and realities of the situation. As does anti-trans when compared to gender-critical. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

  I think it is all about specificity. "...supports restricting rights and protections for LGBTQ people" is a lot better as a neutral, factual, informative descriptor than "anti-LGBTQ" would be. In this case, I think the sources would support something like "Genspect is an international non-profit organisation opposed to gender-affirming care for transgender people." That is already in the lead, and just flips the sentence order. It is better to start with their mission, rather than the less relevant information about when and by whom they were founded that is currently in the lead sentence. The sources don't support, and the article would not be improved by, replacing that specific mission with just "anti-trans".--Trystan (talk) 19:50, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

  Like I said, I would support something along the lines of restricting rights and protections for LGBT people. However, opposing opposed to gender-affirming care for transgender people doesn't cover that they are opposed to any healthcare coverage for trans people, actively pushing to legislate against it, oppose bans on conversion therapy, and oppose the right of transgender minors to be treated equally in schools. My main issue is framing them as opposed to a kind of medical care rather than, as the sources support, a kind of people, which is what is meant by multiple sources describing them as anti-trans as opposed to just opposed to healthcare. A secondary issue is that gender-critical isn't actually supported thoroughly in the sources, while anti-trans is. I'd say the latter is better than the former, but neither could also work as long as we give an accurate portrayal. Additionally, their partnership with far-right anti-LGBT groups warrants mention I believe. Saying they're opposed to transgender rights (known for partnering with anti-LGBT hate groups to oppose transgender rights) or listing which specifically they oppose (known for partnering with anti-LGBT hate groups to criminalize and restrict access to transgender healthcare is better than misrepresenting them as just being philosophically against the affirming healthcare. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

  Reading tendentiously and turning off readers is actually not a violation of WP:IMPARTIAL. If we provide an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of the positions included in RS, it doesn't matter how it comes across to the reader. ––FormalDude (talk) 19:56, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

• No. The lead is already jam-packed with encyclopedically informative material like "Genspect is known for criticizing and opposing gender-affirming care and social and medical transitions for transgender people.[6][7]" and much else, without tacking on a politicized PoV label with an unclear meaning.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:48, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
• Yes: The sources TheTranarchist has laid out pretty strongly support the descriptor "anti-trans". While it's a strong label, it's also one that news orgs have been very willing to use themselves. We should follow their wording and not inject bias by shying away from a consensus opinion. Loki (talk) 02:14, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
• No. Regarding the cherry-picked sources used in this RfC to support labeling Genspect as "anti-trans": except for PinkNews, the "How each source in reception actually describes Genspect" section does not link to the cited sources. So I looked up what was cited.
  openDemocracy does not describe Genspect as "anti-trans". It only says that it has "working relationships with proponents of anti-trans conversion therapy including Our Duty". The Texas Observer article is about the New York Times article by writer Emily Bazelon. It states that "Bazelon’s article quotes extensively from parents involved in a group called GENSPECT" — however, TTO does not describe Genspect as "anti-trans". Only Florida Phoenix with its own voice describes Genspect as being among "anti-trans fringe movements". The other sources are LGBTQ media which are, by virtue of representing LGBTQ interests, pro-trans and inherently biased against Gentech: Gay Community News (Dublin) is an LGBTQ newspaper, LGBTQ Nation is an LGBTQ website, Outsports is an LGBTQ website, PinkNews is an LGBTQ website, Them is an LGBTQ website. At this time, mainstream media in general has not defined Genspect as "anti-trans". Besides mainstream media, academic media also needs to be taken into account. We cannot rely on the unbalanced viewpoints of LGBTQ media.
  Furthermore, since Genspect is a non-profit organization consisting of individuals, labeling Genspect "anti-trans" is, in essence, saying that every individual involved with Genspect is anti-trans ... and in so doing, WP:BLP comes into play. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 16:07, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

  The WP:CRYBLP argument being made here - that we should apply BLP policies to organisations because individuals belong to these organisations, is laughable unsupported by Wikipedia policy or the WP community.

  Also, the argument that the viewpoints of LGBTQ media are unbalanced and that mainstream media viewpoints are (therefore?) preferred is also unsupported by Wikipedia policy or the WP community. Sigh. I'm not sure anything is left of this !vote besides a feeling of disgruntlement. Newimpartial (talk) 17:22, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

  Open Democracy starts describing Genspect in the first paragraph of the section titled Links to anti-trans advocacy, where they go into depth about Genspect's anti-trans advocacy, and the fact Genspect "stands in full solidarity" with an anti-trans conversion therapy. Missing the forest through the trees.

  The Texas Observer describes what Genspect does as anti-trans activism and criticizes the times for not describing them as such: Bazelon’s article quotes extensively from parents involved in a group called GENSPECT, an organization that opposes gender-affirming care for young people. Some members quoted support banning transition for anyone under 25, which has become a mainstream Republican position. Bazelon noted on Twitter that the group has engaged in anti-trans activism. The article, however, presents them only as a concerned group of parents, ignoring this vital context. The article is spent critiquing Genspect's coverage and analyzing the real world harm it has on transgender people.

  If LGBT sources all agree Genspect is anti-trans, that's a fairly damning statement on Genspect. Given the fact media corporations can be biased against human rights, saying publications more likely to represent the views of LGBT people fairly, and cover LGBT topics in more depth and more often, should be ignored because they give too much credence to LGBT people is ridiculous. I mean, saying we have to ignore anyone "pro-trans" (pro human rights) because they won't speak nicely about this organization is merely introducing bias and ignoring reliable sources because you disagree. Those who focus on the rights of LGBT people categorize this group as opposed to that, literally just adding to the argument Genspect is opposed to transgender people's rights. Luckily, as pointed out, thankfully no WP policy states "because the majority of LGBT publications say something I disagree with on an issue regarding LGBT rights they're too biased to be considered a reliable source when saying it."

  In terms of the medical reception, we do have those researchers at Yale describing Genspect as a small group of anti-trans activists known to feature biased and unscientific content. If you look at the Medical reception section, you can see that Genspect is regarded as eroding access to transgender healthcare and opposing medical consensus to push a WP:FRINGE POV. Look at their activities forcibly detransitioning people in various states. Also, literally everything they say is against medical consensus and viewed as harmful. Forced transitioning is recognized pretty universally as bad, as is misgendering students, as is pushing ROGD, which as per the CAAPS statement is medically unrecognized and used to harm transgender youth by providing the justification for bills targeting them. Please point out a single time Genspect's views have been supported in a reliable source.

  Also, currently only one source describes Genspect as gender critical (anti-trans but PC), every other source takes pains to put that in quotes and make clear it's a self-describing label. Anti-trans is supported by far more sources than gender-critical, but we include the latter. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:22, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

• Find source and attribute a la "The Southern Poverty Law Center says (the Proud Boys) are a hate group." TheTranarchist's original research is careful, thorough, and personally has me convinced that Genspect is anti-trans, but it is still original research. A statement attributed to a well known entity can sometimes be even more powerful than speaking in Wikipedia's voice. Here, it might also be more appropriate. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:22, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

  What do you mean, "original research"? Citing sources is the opposite of WP:OR. Loki (talk) 03:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

• Yes - the sources lined up to state that Genspect is "anti-trans" are strong, and the sources disputing this statement are non-existent. Right now we have "gender critical" in the lead sentence, which is a poorly-sourced euphemism meaning essentially the same thing but with a whitewashing POV attached. The change would be a clear improvement in terms of encyclopaedicity. Newimpartial (talk) 10:51, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  Ooh, "encyclopaedicity". That's a good word. Loki (talk) 21:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

• No. Does this organization support violence against transgender people? Do they think no one is actually transgender? I would call either of those positions "anti-trans". But no, neither is true for Genspect, as far as I can tell: rather, they are of the belief that many (not all) of the young people who want to transition are not actually transgender, but rather have been manipulated by social pressure, and will eventually change their minds. Does that qualify as "anti-trans"? If so, I would say the term "anti-trans" is so broad as to be meaningless. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:32, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

an issue-based discussion that rapidly devolves into a Q&A

And clearly your WP:OR should supercede the reliable sources on the topic. SMH. Newimpartial (talk) 17:35, 30 September 2022 (UTC) @Korny O'Near: as previously mentioned, they claim to only be concerned about kids transitioning, but their activism extends far beyond that. Is it anti-trans to say that transgender adults should be barred from transitioning? To push for their legal right to transition to be taken away? When the medical consensus is that causes harm to them? That's a clear act of mass state violence against transgender adults. Not to mention, most kids who transition are transgender, according to reliable sources. It would be homophobic to insist that gay people under 18 should be forced to act straight because their parents don't believe them and think they're not really gay. It's similarly transphobic to insist that trans people under 18 should be stopped from transitioning because their parents don't believe they're actually trans. The idea they turn trans because of "social contagion" has been rebuked by every major psychological organization as not based on any reliable evidence and harmful to transgender youth. See the CAAPS statement which states CAAPS supports eliminating the use of ROGD and similar concepts for clinical and diagnostic application given the lack of empirical support for its existence and its likelihood of contributing to harm and mental health burden. In short, they push violence against transgender minors and adults by denying care that medical consensus states they will suffer without. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:28, 30 September 2022 (UTC) Is there a policy-based reason for this objection to the article calling them anti-trans? Or are you saying that in your personal opinion they're not anti-trans? Because those are two very different things. Loki (talk) 21:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC) Korny O'Near: WP:RFC states: "Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; all articles must follow the Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and No original research policies." For RfCs: a Yes/No–Support/Oppose needs to be based on one (or more) of these policies. However, although many editors who respond to RfCs use essays to explain and reinforce their opinion, "essays are not policies or guidelines" — editors are not required to use any essay to make a point or sustain their response. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 14:19, 1 October 2022 (UTC) These are some odd responses, I have to say. Newimpartial et al. - do you feel that personal opinions are verboten in an RfC? If so, perhaps you should take it up with TheTranarchist, who puts here (and in their main vote) very little but their own personal opinions. (As have many others here, to be fair.) And TheTranarchist - I would actually love to see the evidence that Genspect advocates "that transgender adults should be barred from transitioning". The article itself doesn't say that, as far as I can tell. Korny O'Near (talk) 00:21, 3 October 2022 (UTC) You offered multiple opinions about facts and definitions, none of which are based on any sources provided in this discussion, TheTranarchist, no matter what you think of their contributions has not done the same. Newimpartial (talk) 00:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC) I'm sorry you mistake a large section of verified information as personal opinion, but I'll run you through it once again and simplify it for you. In terms of barring adults from transitioning, what do you think happens to transgender people on medicaid who can't afford health coverage without it? Because these transphobes are all for class war too, as it's the poorest trans people hit the hardest. You can also check the article, where it states they openly stand in full solidarity with Our Duty, who advocate a ban on those under 25 transitioning (and conversion therapy, AKA "100% desistance", but that's another story). On Genspect's positions page, they state we have grave qualms about anyone below [25] making the decision to transition. For the record, 18-25 year olds are adults. Not that stopping youth transitioning isn't also awful. Since you didn't take issue with the other anti-trans stances I listed in the main vote such as opposing conversion therapy bans, working with anti-LGBT hate groups, pushing for schools to misgender and deadname trans students against their will, and pushing ROGD, I'll assume you weren't as lost about the veracity of those statements. I pointed out those are all classified by medical consensus as harmful to trans people. Then I methodically listed what reliable sources had to say about Genspect. Contrasting my vote, which listed things an organization has verifiably done, medical consensus on that, and what reliable sources have to say, with yours, which I'll get into again in a second, one seems to lean a lot more towards very little but their own personal opinions. Breaking down your response Does this organization support violence against transgender people? Conversion therapy is harmful to trans people, as is every piece of medical misinformation they spew. As are their attempts to deny transgender people the right to transition, forcibly detransitioning people by making transition illegal or inaccessible. Do they think no one is actually transgender? That's a ridiculous bar, by that same token anti-LGBT means an organization denies all LGBT people exist rather than advocating policies which directly harm LGBT people. Racist means someone believes POC don't exist. Fun fact, homophobes who oppose gay marriage don't do it because they think people aren't actually gay, they just don't want them to be. I would call either of those positions "anti-trans". Go ahead, the first one is certainly met, the second is unreachable since an organization which opposes transgender rights has to partly acknowledge transgender people exist (however, the solution to the fascist dilemma of "trans people don't exist but they do and they shouldn't" is in fact "they're not really trans they're brainwashed by social pressure we need to stop"). But no, neither is true for Genspect, as far as I can tell: rather, they are of the belief that many (not all) of the young people who want to transition are not actually transgender, but rather have been manipulated by social pressure, and will eventually change their minds. Does that qualify as "anti-trans"? I won't bother quoting it again since I believe in your reading comprehension, but the CAAPS statement is pretty unequivocal that's a ridiculous and harmful position used to take away transgender people's rights. Also, see the previous paragraph, even the previous several concerning their activism focused on the rights of adults. Also don't forget, to protect this supposed group of brainwashed cis kids, they attack the rights of transgender youth. TLDR, yes it does qualify as anti-trans, especially in consideration of the rest of their advocacy. If so, I would say the term "anti-trans" is so broad as to be meaningless. I'd counter that if saying some trans children aren't really trans and therefore transgender children shouldn't have rights, and those under 25 should be denied rights, and those at any age who are too poor should be denied rights isn't "anti-trans", the term is so narrow as to be meaningless. Especially if the bar is supposedly the paradoxical they think no one is actually transgender TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 03:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC) There is a great deal of synthesis going on here, detracting from the core discussion of what “anti-trans” means, whether reliable sources use it, and what is meant by it. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 07:38, 3 October 2022 (UTC) TheTranarchist - this hardly seems like the place for a full discussion about Genspect and/or transgenderism as a whole, so I'm not going to respond to these arguments other than to say that I disagree with almost all of them. And I agree somewhat with Barnards that your post is not that useful, although I actually think it's useful in at least two ways: it illustrates how little it takes for some people, both here and in the outside world, to apply the label "anti-trans" ("You don't think the government should pay for surgeries? Anti-trans!"); and it demonstrates the rather selective concern some editors here have about the use of personal opinions within an RfC. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC) I will WP:AGF that you are currently unaware of previous discussions on this, but transgenderism is currently - and has been for some years now - dog-whistle anti-transgender WP:POV language. Please don't use it to discuss topics within the GENSEX WP:ACDS topic area. Thanks. I will also point out that your inability to distinguish between opinions thet are backed up with sources and/or policies, on the one hand, and rectally-generated opinions, on the other, does not enhance the patina of quality around your own contributions within this domain. Newimpartial (talk) 15:06, 3 October 2022 (UTC) Well, that's rude. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2022 (UTC) @Korny O'Near: I know you disagree with factual statements, that's been covered. The fact you use "transgenderism" tells me you have little concern for a real discussion. Luckily, that their actions are medically proven to be harmful to transgender people continues to be true regardless of your opinion. You have yet to point out any opinions of mine for the record while boldly screaming your own into the wind. I think your post is useful as it shows how little it takes for some people, both here and in the outside world, to call discrimination against transgender people literally anything but anti-trans, presumably because they agree with such bigotry themselves. You think poor trans people should lose their access to medically necessary hormones? God forbid someone describes that, an action which does real and provable harm to transgender people, as anti-trans. For the record, transition is not just surgeries as you glibly put it, and regardless it still is anti-trans to try and deny trans people necessary medical care because you disagree with it and they can't afford it. Should people under 25 be stopped from transitioning? Nothing anti-trans about stopping legal adults transitioning. Funny how you asked for, then ignored, evidence of them advocating stopping adults from transitioning. Almost like you never had a real point. Should conversion therapy be allowed on transgender minors? God forbid it's considered anti-trans to do that. Tell Leelah Alcorn that it's ok, the conversion therapists that tried to stop her being trans and drove her to suicide weren't "anti-trans", I'll leave it up to you to figure out how to convey conversion therapy isn't transphobic. For the record, it's very telling on many levels how your goalpost moved from "Genspect doesn't advocate violence or harm against transgender people or wish to stop adults transitioning, I'll concede it if they do" to "all evidence to the contrary is just an opinion and you call anything anti-trans". I won't engage in you anymore since it's obvious that your bar of "anti-trans" seems to be an unreachable strawman, as the organization would have to deny any transgender people exist while advocating violence against them (however, it apparently doesn't count to say most transgender children don't exist and transgender people under 25 should be legally stopped from transitioning, a position medical consensus states is harm), a ridiculous notion unsupported by the sources or reality and more reflective of your biases than anything meaningful. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:15, 3 October 2022 (UTC) As I said before, this is hardly the place to have this kind of comprehensive discussion. But let me just respond to one thing: the idea that Genspect wants to prevent adults from transitioning. Yes, this is technically true, in that their desired cutoff age is 25 and not 18. But it's strange to describe it that way - just like no one says the U.S. Constitution prevents adults from becoming president, even though their minimum is 35 and not 18. (And certainly no one says that the Constitution is "anti-president".) Korny O'Near (talk) 16:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC) God help me, I'll bite one more time because this is ridiculous. By "comprehensive discussion" do you mean referring to facts and not opinions? Not "technically", that is true. Treating adults as incapable of making their own medical decisions just because they're transgender is anti-trans. It's bad enough they oppose transgender rights for minors, that they try and stop adults transitioning enough is anti-trans by any definition. In response to it's strange to describe it that way, as one of those transgender adults who doesn't particularly want to wake up unable to access healthcare because it's been criminalized, without a hint of strangeness, yes that's anti-trans and, unless you're doing olympic level mental gymnastics, plainly stopping adults from transitioning. Unless you want to argue that it's not and say to my face I should be legally barred from transitioning until 25. Your use of "technically" and comparison to being "anti-president" is ridiculous and insulting, being president is a choice and elected position which effects other people, being trans is not. There's a difference between a singular person and a demographic group. 18-25 year olds are adults, so are poor trans people 25+. Any bigoted defense that opposition to transgender rights is "safeguarding children" flies out the window as soon as you involve adults. Regarding your main vote, your original issue was that they just don't want children transitioning, that you repeatedly dance around the fact they do a lot more than that makes it very hard to assume good faith. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC) Thank you for clarifying your personal investment in this issue; I hope that you're not letting your personal needs cloud your editorial judgment. Anyway, getting surgery is a choice, just like running for president of the U.S. Why shouldn't a 20-year-old be able to run for president? Are they incapable of making good decisions? Korny O'Near (talk) 17:52, 3 October 2022 (UTC) Re: getting surgery is a choice, just like running for president - unless you are suggesting that running for president can be a medically necessary health intervention, this digression is irrelevant and offensive. Newimpartial (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC) I'm not sure you know what "sealioning" is... I just wanted to express my opinion; you two are the ones trying to endlessly argue/soapbox about it. Especially, TheTranarchist, with their walls of text. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:16, 3 October 2022 (UTC) WP:SEALION applies to editors who are superficially polite while exhibiting some or all of the following behaviors ...They hang around forever, wearing down more serious editors...They will attempt to label others or otherwise discredit their opinion based on that person's associations rather than the core of their argument and, in this case, doing so by deploying ridicule and non sequitur argumentation. And whatever you want to say about this discussion, arguing that people aged 18-25 are adults and that medically-mandated treatments are relevant to the health of identifiable groups can scarcely be described (non-ironically) as SOAPBOXING. On the other hand, if you think article Talk pages are appropriate spaces for you to express (your) opinion without reference to reliable sources or Wikipedia policy ... well, that certainly helps to explain the digression. Newimpartial (talk) 18:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC) Wow, I'm sorry for "hanging around forever" around the the thread devoted to my own RfC vote. No offense, but there was really no reason for you to be involved here in the first place. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:46, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

• Not until we have addressed the fact that Anti-trans currently redirects to Transphobia. The term "anti-trans" would benefit from a wikilink to further explanation of what it means, but the obvious wikilink is unsuitable unless there is consensus that this group should be described as transphobic. I don't believe it is a satisfactory option to simply avoid wikilinking the term, because anyone looking to understand what it means is likely to just look it up manually. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 14:08, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

  You don't think Genspect is part of the collection of ideas and phenomena that encompass a range of negative attitudes, feelings, or actions towards transgender people or transness in general? That seems like an extraordinary claim. Newimpartial (talk) 14:53, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

  All I’m saying is that Wikipedia currently equates (implicitly, via that redirect) “anti-trans” with “transphobic”. Maybe that’s correct. But if so, we may as well label Genspect as transphobic directly rather than indirectly. Do reliable sources describe it as transphobic? If not, that would align with my own personal interpretation, which is that they are not synonyms. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 17:38, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

  It is my opinion (which fits the way these terms on WP, incidentally) that these terms hold the same denotative meaning(s) but with different connotations. Newimpartial (talk) 18:14, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

  One difference that goes beyond connotation is that "transphobia" is defined in hate crime law in some countries, so it is a serious allegation, and a false accusation could be libellous. Whereas I know of no firm definition of "anti-trans". Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 21:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

  In Canada, the only country I know anything about country I know best, the relevant speech is defined by targeting an "identifiable group" based on "gender identity or gender expression". "Transphobia" as such has nothing to do with it one way or another. Newimpartial (talk) 21:21, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

  Well in my opinion those words are in fact synonyms. I don't see what sort of article could exist that dealt with antitransness but not transphobia. Madeline (part of me) 15:22, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

  If you think the terms are different, what do you think is the distinction? Loki (talk) 02:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  For a start, “transphobic” can be found in a dictionary, giving us something to work with. I know of no authoritative reference for what “anti-trans” means. In my mind, the center of transphobia is hateful hostility and prejudice towards transgender people, whereas anti-trans could also encompass non-hateful opposition to the idea of “trans” or the concept of gender identity. It’s pretty clear from reading the Genspect website that they consider themselves advocates for gender dysphoric individuals, while also being opponents of affirming trans identities. In that sense, they would be clearly anti-trans, but not clearly transphobic.

  But that’s just my own conception of what the word means (and perhaps that of a few other editors who I now see have made essentially the same point elsewhere on this page). Others may disagree. A reliable source would help. In the meantime, we shouldn’t be using words that don’t have clear meanings, especially not in the lead of an article, and especially not when the word is equated with a LABEL via wikilink. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 12:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  We use the term anti-LGBT in other places on the site to mean opposition to the rights of LGBT people. To me, "anti-trans" and "transphobic" are largely synonymous, with anti-trans organizations being transphobic, but it implies the additional level of opposing the rights of transgender people and pushing for that change in the real world. For an existing defintion, the Southern Poverty Law Center states A central theme of anti-LGBTQ organizing and ideology is the opposition to LGBTQ rights, often couched in demonizing rhetoric and grounded in harmful pseudoscience that portrays LGBTQ people as threats to children, society and often public health. Swap out "LGBTQ" for "trans" and it describes Genspect perfectly. They seem to assume "anti-trans" is obvious and use it frequently, stating In the case of anti-trans legislation, a few national anti-LGBTQ groups are involved in crafting legislation, advising lawmakers and developing and promoting anti-trans disinformation through social media and right-wing news outlets. Representatives and supporters of national and state-level anti-LGBTQ groups and specifically anti-trans groups are also tapped to testify at hearings related to these bills. These anti-trans medical professionals and other anti-trans “experts” provide testimony that repeats false claims that puberty blockers and hormone treatments are dangerous and irreversible.

  The Human Rights Campaign uses "anti-transgender" to refer to stigma against transgender people, attempts to legislate away transgender rights, and discrimination. Generally as a synonym for transphobic.

  The ACLU uses anti-trans to refer to legislation restricting the rights of trans people stating These measures target transgender and nonbinary people for discrimination, such as by barring or criminalizing healthcare for trans youth, barring access to the use of appropriate facilities like restrooms, restricting trans students’ ability to fully participate in school and sports, allowing religiously-motivated discrimination against trans people, or making it more difficult for them to get identification documents with their name and gender.

  The Anti Defamation League defines anti-trans bias as The marginalization and/or oppression of people who are transgender and/or nonbinary (identifying as neither a man nor a woman) based on the belief that cisgender (gender identity that corresponds with the sex one was assigned at birth) is the norm.

  Regarding anti-trans could also encompass non-hateful opposition to the idea of “trans” or the concept of gender identity, you can't be anti-trans without being transphobic since transgender people exist. Same reason that non-hateful opposition to the idea of “gay” or the concept of sexual orientation is ridiculous. In gay terms, that's when people call it a lifestyle choice and insist that only straight people exist, gay people are just deviating from what they should be doing.

  In terms of they consider themselves advocates for gender dysphoric individuals, while also being opponents of affirming trans identities. In that sense, they would be clearly anti-trans, but not clearly transphobic: that is simply repackaging "hate the sin, love the sinner". For comparison, try out they consider themselves advocates for same-gender attracted individuals, while also being opponents of affirming gay identities. Transgender people with gender dysphoria are best helped by acceptance and being allowed to transition.

  All in all, the reliable sources tend to use "anti-trans" to mean opposed to rights and protections for transgender people, which falls under transphobia. I do see your point about whether anti-trans should link to transphobia, and think the article does need some work to describe anti-trans legislation and organizations, but it's the best option. Within Anti-LGBT rhetoric we have a section on Anti-transgender rhetoric which says the main article is Transphobia, and considering their activism extends beyond rhetoric we should link to the main article on the topic. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:09, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you for the references. However, I think it is telling that they come from sites holding a particular POV, and thus the term feels fully analogous to “anti-life” as defined by pro-life groups. We already recognise “anti-life” as a pejorative label that shouldn’t be used in wikivoice, and I don’t see how “anti-trans” is much different. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 07:41, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

  The HRC, ACLU, and SPLC hold the not especially radical POV that people should have human rights, which is miles apart from random definitions used by anti-abortion activists. "Anti-trans" is different from "anti-life" in that one is defined as actions and attitudes prejudiced to trans people, a demographic of people who exist and one can be prejudiced against, and the other was created by anti-abortion groups to make them sound better. They are by no means fully analogous. To put it simply, which organization can define "anti-trans" in a way that meets your standards and what exactly is a neutral one word description for actions and prejudice against transgender people if not "anti-trans"? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:12, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

  I'm curious to hear what Barnards says, but to answer your last question: the better term to describe organizations like Genspect is "gender-realist". It's not exactly neutral (neither is "anti-trans", of course), but it much more precisely defines their views than "anti-trans" does, if reader comprehension is the goal. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:42, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

  Do you have any sources describing Genspect as "gender-realist" or any reliable sources providing a definition of "gender-realist"? I'll save you the trouble by answering no, you don't. Making up a definition on the spot that seems a polite euphemism for transphobia is on par with your contributions to the discussion so far. Also, I love how "gender-realist" is how you describe an organization saying people should be prevented from transitioning despite medical consensus they should be able to. By that token, how would you describe organizations that support transgender rights, "gender-fictionalist" or some other unsupported and obviously loaded term? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:06, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

  No, I don't think we will be using "gender-realist" to describe Genspect. The same logic applies for why we don't use "race-realist" to describe racists, or use "pro-life" to describe anti-abortion activists. Those terms are pure uncritical whitewashing, and fall afoul of the WP:NPOV policy. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:16, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

  I just don’t think we can take definitions at face value when they come from and are used by just one side of a contentious debate. You say “anti-life” was was created by anti-abortion groups to make them sound better. Yes, quite - the goal of such terms is to frame opponents negatively by saying they oppose something that is obviously, objectively good. But drill into the actual arguments and you find that the things pro-choicers are actually for and against are not the things the term accuses them of being against. It’s a kind of reverse motte-and-bailey. NPOV means avoiding these negative framing techniques in wikivoice. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 21:03, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

  Exactly, that is what "gender-critical" and our newly minted "gender-realist" do. Brief note, gender-critical is the current descriptor in the article, but has been used far less in reliable sources and when it has it was usually quoting their self-description rather than saying it in article's own voice.

  However, your initial concern was that anti-trans links to transphobic, but it is a widely used term that has a straightforward definition as provided by multiple reliable sources, namely actions or prejudices which cause harm against trans people. The organization's coverage in reliable sources has most often used that term, for their obviously anti-trans stances. And it isn't just one side of a contentious debate, there's no debate that transgender people exist and people can be biased to us and target us, and groups that do so are described as "anti-trans" in reliable sources.

  Like I asked, what kind of neutral term is there for an organization that is known primarily for opposing the rights of transgender people? Namely, spreading the idea that children aren't really trans therefore should be prevented from transitioning, being quoted as saying their main goal is preventing medical transition, forcing schools to out students to potentially abusive parents, opposing bans on conversion therapy, opposing the right of those under 25 to transition, and opposing the right of working class trans people on Medicaid to transition, all of which have been condemned by medical consensus as harmful to transgender people. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:54, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

  “Gender-critical” isn’t a term used exclusively by opponents to negatively frame the subject. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 07:33, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

  Neither is race realist, but somehow WP doesn't use that one in wikivoice... Newimpartial (talk) 10:53, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

  Are you suggesting gender critical is equally FRINGE to race realist? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 12:52, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

  No, I was referring directly to your point about self-identification: WP doesn't use terms just because they are used for self-identification of a political viewpoint.

  However, in relation to the recent, reliable sources, Genspect members who claim that gender identity is an ideology or a lie rather than something real definitely hold WP:FRINGE views. Newimpartial (talk) 13:43, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

  My point was not that gender-critical is a suitable description just because it’s how the group self-identifies. It was that anti-trans is *not* a suitable description if it’s only used by the group’s opponents as a negative framing tactic. There are other reasons why gender-critical might still be unsuitable - such as it being fringe. But a member of a group holding a fringe view does not automatically make the group fringe. Clearly there are plenty of fringe views to be found beneath the trans umbrella too. We should seek to characterise things by their centres, not their edges. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:27, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

  And there's the real point: is the term anti-trans only used by the group’s opponents as a negative framing tactic? Or is it used as an "objective" assessment of the group by independent, reliable sources? Editors have asserted the former, but I believe the actual sourcing situation points to the latter.

  As far as gender-critical views being "fringe", that certainly depends on the view being put forward. The view that gender-affirming surgery should be withheld until the age of 18 is not a fringe view, though it is in many contexts a minority view. There is a spectrum of gender-critical views, and much of Genspect'd activity places it at the FRINGE end of the spectrum. Newimpartial (talk) 16:33, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

  I am unconvinced that the sources that do use anti-trans are reporting it as fact, as opposed to it simply being an opinion that reflects their own biases. Reliable sources can be biased and we are asked to compensate for this. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 19:11, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

  The OpenDemocracy source and the Yale source do not seem to me to be especially biased on this matter. The idea that such sources require us to compensate by using language that differs from that of the source seems, ahem, unproven, especially if the language proposed as a replacement is used only by one side of a debate. Newimpartial (talk) 19:53, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

  All sources have biases, and it didn’t take long to determine the biases of those two. Opendemocracy is unashamedly progressive, and the lead author of the Yale article is the medical director of the Yale Gender Program(!). In this case, the compensation is not to make up an alternative term that differs from the sources, it’s to use the term used by sources on both sides of the debate. Even Pink News uses gender-critical. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:56, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think any sources support your assertion that gender critical is a relatively neutral term used...on both sides of the debate - a single use of the term by PinkNews certainly fails to establish that.

  And the question I was raising wasn't whether OpenDemocracy or the Yale center have any bias at all, but whether they are especially biased in a way that requires us to compensate. Your proposal here that the Gender Program at Yale's medical faculty is biased in a way that requires us to compensate - well, that is an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim that really shouldn't be presented without some kind of evidence. TBH, it sounds remarkably adjacent to anti-trans conspiracy, though I assume that was not what you intended. Newimpartial (talk) 00:32, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

  No conspiracy theory implied. I am simply determining on which side of the chessboard each piece lies, to inform which moves we would expect them to make. When all the “anti-trans” pieces line up on one side of the board, but “gender-critical” pieces can be found on each side, that tells us something about the neutrality of the term. The latter is used by one source for this subject, but I think we have crossed over into discussion on how the term is used generally, so you can add, for example, The Guardian as a left-biased source that also uses gender-critical to describe these sorts of groups. Are there any non-biased sources? In this highly polarised debate, possibly not. That is why we must account for bias and not just count citations. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 07:15, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

  Your chessboard metaphor doesn't really work here, for two reasons. For one thing, you are presuming a mapping between left/progressive and right politics, on the one hand, and support and opposition to transgender rights, on the other, and that doesn't exist in the real world. The Guardian, for example, is further to the left politically than, say, USA Today but is much mkrs ambivalent about trans rights than mainstream sources from the US and even clearly right-of-centre sources from Canada.

  Secondly, you are imposing a WP:FALSEBALANCE that the sources that are critical of this article's subject and ones that are more supportive are somehow in WP:BALANCE, which we would then need to reflect for WP:NPOV. A chessboard is square and the two sides begin the game in symmetry, but this simply isn't the case for what we are discussing. We have a critical view from academic, NGO and most journalistic sources, on the one hand, and we have a supportive view from a tiny minority of journalists and from FRINGE science. Treating all of these sources as biased in the same sense, as if we had to filter out or BALANCE all of that "bias", just isn't what WP policy tells us to do when there is, as in this case, a clearly documented predominant view. Newimpartial (talk) 12:04, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

  I don’t think false balance can be achieved by one word in the lead. The rest of the article is saturated with the criticisms given by the various sources.

  I’m not making a case for rewriting the article to reflect a gender-critical POV. I’m making a case against the use of the word anti-trans. It’s inherently a negative framing tactic. We can tell it is thus because of the bias of the sources that use it. It is additionally equated via wikilink with transphobic, which is a much stronger accusation that goes further than the sources do. The balance of the article is not harmed by us choosing not to use this loaded, emotive, problematic LABEL. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:29, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

  Yes. If you hadn't noticed, most reliable sources use "gender-critical" in quotes as how Genspect describes themselves rather than directly calling them that. The article for gender-critical is half about why it means anti-trans and transphobia hiding under the language of feminism.

  Not to mention, the very word is an attempt to sanitize transphobia. They aren't critical of gender, they are critical of transgender people, but fine with forcing people living as their assigned gender at birth. In much the same way "race-realist" attempts to hide that it is prejudiced attitudes of racial minorities coached in scientific language, gender-critical attempts to attack trans people by saying it's bold feminism.

  Once again, "anti-trans" implies they hold positions and endorse actions known to harm transgender people, which they reliably do according to reliable sources and medical consensus. It is a straightforward descriptor, and if reading you makes you think anti-trans means bad, it's because being anti-trans is bad. "Gender-critical" implies they just criticize gender, without being clear they oppose trans people's rights (by insisting they should live as a different gender because other people want them to).

  For a more direct comparison, if an organization believes gay people are abnormal and campaigns against things like gay-inclusive sex-ed, gay conversion therapy, and gay marriage until 25 (in case they grow out of being gay), and they call themselves "sexuality-critical" (critical of LGBQ sexualities but not straight ones), while most reliable sources describe them as "anti-LGBT", which one is more neutral? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 13:52, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

• Yes. Most reliable sources describe them as such. Pro-LGBT biases are not relevant here. If the majority of sources describing the group appear biased against [read: opposed to] them, wikivoice needs to reflect that. Madeline (part of me) 07:42, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• No, as per others. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:26, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• No. Anti-trans is a needlessly imprecise term with an unclear meaning, tendentiousness aside. BrigadierG (talk) 15:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
• No – As stated by BrigadierG, anti-trans is an unclear and contentious MOS:LABEL which is better to avoid. The second paragraph of the lead already does a good job of explaining the group's position on transexuality. --Guest2625 (talk) 11:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Tip re date format

Hi @Sideswipe9th thanks for fixing up the dates. Did you use a tool? If so, I'd love to know about it. AndyGordon (talk) 08:17, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The script is actually linked in the edit summary! It's WP:MOSNUMscript. Assuming you're using the Vector legacy skin on desktop, whenever you're in the edit source view, it shows up as a set of four options after the Tools list on the left hand side of the screen. It should work on the other desktop skins as well, but the location might be different. The first two options are for an automated conversion of all dates in an article and its citations to either DMY or MDY dates. If the article was already tagged with {{use dmy dates}} or {{use mdy dates}} it will update the date parameter on that automatically, and if the article isn't tagged with either it will add the appropriate one based on which audit option you use.

Altogether it's a really helpful script, makes ensuring consistent dates in an article a hell of a lot easier! Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @Sideswipe9th AndyGordon (talk) 07:35, 14 September 2022 (UTC)