Talk:Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Thompson et al. removed

@LokiTheLiar: You removed the paragraph that described the Thompson et al. study. The removed paragraph disclosed the following:

• Thompson et al. set out to do a systematic review of adolescent gender dysphoria literature in order to study adolescent- or rapid-onset gender dysphoria.
• It found insufficient literature on the subject of adolescent- or rapid-onset gender dysphoria.
• It found a debate as to whether adolescent- or rapid-onset gender dysphoria is a genuine phenomenon—according to this source, unlike others, the question is still open for debate.
• It found that Bauer et al. (2021) was strongly contradicted by Littman (2022) and Sinai, thus according credibility to Littman and Sinai and tending to diminish the credibility of Bauer.
• It found that there is an observed phenomenon that is referred to as adolescent- or rapid-onset gender dysphoria.
• It concluded that not enough is known about that observed phenomenon.
• It stated that there has been a huge increase in numbers of adolescents (and especially natal females) presenting for gender dysphoria intervention in recent years.
• It stated that we do not fully understand that huge increase, thus disagreeing with those, such as Rosenthal (2021), who believe that the increase is only apparent and does not represent an intrinsic rise in the number of cases.
• It stated that do we do not fully understand the comorbidities and long-term outcomes.

You removed the paragraph with the comment: “This is not new information: we already cite all the studies referred to,” but additional reviews of a given study or of a given phenomenon can be valuable in that they can provide unique perspectives, even if they reach the same conclusion that others reached. Can you explain? Swood100 (talk) 16:25, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree with the way you phrase some of your conclusions above (e.g. not contradicted, which implies refutation, but disputed, which only means a disagreement); and others) but that said, the wording you used in your edit of 14:56, 28 December was much briefer (diff) and was acceptable. Surveys or literature reviews such as Thompson et al. (2023) are the gold standard for inclusion in articles about biomedical topics and stand at the pinnacle of the most reliable sources available. It should most certainly be included in the article. Mathglot (talk) 20:33, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Swood is mischaracterizing this review pretty severely. It's a review of adolescent gender dysphoria in general, not of studies of ROGD. It only ever mentions ROGD very briefly, and not as part of the actual review itself. In that brief comment in the Discussion section, it says there's not enough studies to do a review of ROGD, which is why they didn't do one. Loki (talk) 20:53, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed; the most useful thing to say about it, is exactly that: that there wasn't enough evidence to carry out the survey they originally wished to do, and had to rescope their project to GD in general to have enough data to even continue. On the one hand, I can see an argument for dropping it on that basis, however the "negative data point", that is, the mention that "there isn't enough data" is a useful one, because it does provide some backing for the question, "Is there enough data to conclude anything?" so we might include a brief mention on that basis, or perhaps just as a footnote. What do you think? Mathglot (talk) 21:30, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought it was really obvious that Thompson isn't about ROGD. It's pretty useless for the purposes of this article since all it says is more studies are needed. And the review itself is focused on completely separate subject matter. Edit Conflict: Is it really useful to just use an aside from a review to say it can't comment on a subject such as this article just yet? Silverseren^C 21:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Maybe, because it was way more than an "aside"; they went through statistical analysis of the data they were able to assemble by the methodology they transparently described, and didn't find enough. It's a key point in unbiased scientific publishing that you don't suppress results that neither support your (hoped-for?) result, nor refute it, but are inconclusive. Inconclusive results are the most boring results, and won't get you an endowed chair, but if based on proper methodology are an important contribution to the literature and should be reported (by them), not swept under the rug, as it debilitates other researchers from seeing all the data available to date on the topic, if they wish to replicate or do other studies. Whether *we* report it or not, is another question; but their conclusion that there isn't enough ROGD data to analyze in a survey just yet, isn't an aside, it's a conclusion validated scientifically by their method. Mathglot (talk) 22:03, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm okay with using it to source something like A 2023 systematic review found there had not been enough studies to do a review of ROGD specifically, but only something similarly brief and inconclusive because that's really all the source says. There's not enough in a brief comment in the Discussion section for anything more WP:WEIGHT-y. Loki (talk) 00:04, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, or even briefer, if you can still get a full sentence out of it. I'm even okay with this residing in an explanatory note rather than body text, if that seems to work better. Mathglot (talk) 05:03, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the section could be trimmed to properly incorporate the literature/responses. I'd like to know y'all's thoughts on the below proposal (to replace paragraphs 3-5 in the current version of "Further Research"):

Littman[1] and Sinai[2] issued critiques of Bauer et al. Littman noted out that Bauer had used an incorrect definition of 'ROGD', by relating it to having a short history of gender incongruence, whereas it actually refers to not having gender incongruence before puberty.[3] A July 2022 commentary by the European Paediatric Association noted the lack of consistent scientific evidence for the concept and the position of major medical associations that it should not be used; Noting Bauer and the rebuttals, they concluded the issue still open.[4] In August 2023 Thompson et al published a literature review which concluded "there continues debate as to whether [adolescent- or rapid-onset gender dysphoria] AOGD is a genuine phenomenon ... it is clear that we simply do not know enough about the observed phenomenon referred to as AOGD", noting Baueur and the rebuttals by Littman and Sinai; The review had initially meant to focus on literature regarding the phenomenon and found an absence of literature, leading to a broader search strategy.[5]

A 2022 study by Arnoldussen et al found that evidence was inconclusive as to whether ROGD exists but noted that "our results show that there was gender nonconformity in childhood in older presenters, although less extreme than in the younger presenting group, which speaks against this suggested subtype". It also contextualized Littman's study among previous research which had previously identified subgroups within transgender adolescents, stating "Some adolescents with gender incongruence present with a long history of gender nonconformity from early childhood on (pre-pubertal) but other transgender adolescents declare gender incongruence around or after puberty (peri/post-pubertal). It was usually suggested that most adolescents with a request for medical interventions have a history of early childhood-onset gender incongruence and people with late or post-pubertal gender incongruence present themselves to gender services only later in life". [6] Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I think you're way overquoting here. I don't think we need to include lengthy quotes from any of these sources. None of them is that significant here because all of them basically summarize down to "some researchers think more research is needed". Loki (talk) 00:10, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I think you're right on that front. I do think Arnoldussen should be trimmed, but his study isn't just "more research is needed", they added "but the results in this study cast doubt on ROGD's validity", so I think it has a place. I also think, since it's not mentioned in the article, it's important to note at least somewhere that "some trans kids are gender nonconforming from a young age, some realize they're trans at puberty" is not some new phenomenon and has been a long established fact.

Per WP:MANDY I'm also inclined to leave out Littman and Sinai's rebuttals. WRT the EPA I think it could go under professional commentary per my comment in the section below, since while I don't think it adds much it is the commentary of a professional org. However, since it's mostly just noting and echoing the U.S. response, I'm also inclined to leave it out as uninformative.

WRT Thompson, I like your trimming above, though per Mathglot maybe it could be shortened further to: A 2023 systematic review attempted to review ROGD but was unable to due to insufficient sources. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

• I don't think it makes sense to include studies that only mention ROGD in passing when we already have sources discussing it more directly, especially one whose only conclusion is that they were unable to draw a conclusion. It was a fairly strange addition in the first place given how little it has to say about the topic and the very brief mention it made. --Aquillion (talk) 22:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

"Well, she would say that, wouldn't she?" I don't think we need to have every little rejoinder that Littman made to this or that researcher, because of course she's going to disagree with everybody. We could have a general sort of section mentioning several such collectively, and then pick one representative one to quote or summarize in more detail. If it's this one, then that's okay, I guess, but I think for proponents of her point of view, it's a particularly weak one . Mathglot (talk) 06:25, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

The following points will be left out of the article if the Thompson study is excluded:

1. There is a debate as to whether adolescent- or rapid-onset gender dysphoria is a genuine phenomenon.
2. Bauer said that adolescent- or rapid-onset gender dysphoria it is not a genuine phenomenon. Thompson said that it is an “observed phenomenon.”
3. Bauer faced a “strong” rebuttal from Littman and Sinai. The article had not mentioned anything about Sinai, and it had not mentioned the “strong” characterization with respect to Littman’s rebuttal of Bauer. Thompson, Ferrara and Arnoldussen are the only sources we have commenting on Sinai and Littman's rebuttal of Bauer's study.
4. Thompson stated that there has been a huge increase in the numbers, thereby disagreeing with those who believe that there has been no real increase in numbers.
5. In Thompson’s view, the Bauer study did not dispose of the question (and Littman’s and Sinai’s “strong” rebuttal may have had something to do with this)—we need to know more about both the “observed phenomenon” and the “huge increase in numbers.”
6. There is insufficient literature on the subject of adolescent- or rapid-onset gender dysphoria. We especially need to know more about the increase “in natal females,” as well as “comorbidities and long-term outcomes." This goes to what specific type of “more research” is needed. Also, it contradicts those who believe that no more research is needed.

The fact that Thompson et al. was mostly about something else is irrelevant as long as it does contain commentary germane to this article, which it clearly does. The following are relevant to the article: Thompson expresses the strength of Littman’s and Sinai’s strong rebuttal of Bauer (substantiating the relevance of these sources), that we are dealing with an observed phenomenon (contra Bauer), that Bauer’s study did not resolve the issue (contra those who deny that there is an issue or who say that Bauer resolved it), that there has been a huge increase in the numbers, especially among natal females (contra those who say there is no real increase), and the specific types of additional research that are needed. Swood100 (talk) 18:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but wrt your first point: nearly the entire content of the article is about whether it is a genuine phenomenon, as the title of the article indicates. I didn't continue to #2 after seeing that one, but if you have one or two of those points that you think are on more solid ground than #1, I'll have another look. Mathglot (talk)

Perhaps it would be helpful if you would read what I wrote a little less combatively, and with a little more willingness to find a non-absurd meaning. The tone of this article could easily lead the reader to conclude that since the major professional associations do not recognize ROGD, and discourage its use, therefore the truth of Bauer’s view that there is no genuine phenomenon receives little or no debate in the scientific literature. One of the points that Thompson et al. makes is that the question has not been foreclosed, and that an article open to considering the alternative viewpoint can get published at a top journal. Swood100 (talk) 06:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you that the question has not been foreclosed, as scientific questions rarely are. Additional research based on the scientific method would no doubt be welcome at any number of academic journals. Thompson is not the only one to have made this observation, and it's a trope of scientific publications to welcome further research, something which I certainly agree with, and await with interest. I disagree that there is no debate in the scientific literature, and the 60+ citations in the § References section show examples of them.

Regarding your S2, I agree with you that reading the article's content and citations (not TONE) might lead the reader to conclude what professional associations say about ROGD, and that per WP:DUEWEIGHT, that is an accurate impression of the majority view of reliable sources, and therefore the principal view the article should convey. That there are opposing views is clear, and per WP:DUE, those are covered also. Mathglot (talk) 09:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to disregard item number 1. It was just intended as a lead-in to item number two, anyway. Edited to strikethrough number 1 and add text to number 2. Swood100 (talk) 14:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist: Some comments on your suggested replacement paragraphs:

Littman[4] and Sinai[5] issued critiques of Bauer et al. Littman noted out that Bauer had used an incorrect definition of 'ROGD', by relating it to having a short history of gender incongruence, whereas it actually refers to not having gender incongruence before puberty.[6]

This is fine.

A July 2022 commentary by the European Paediatric Association noted the lack of consistent scientific evidence for the concept and the position of major medical associations that it should not be used; Noting Bauer and the rebuttals, they concluded the issue still open.[7]

This attributes the concern about lack of consistent scientific evidence to the European Paediatric Association (EPA) and leaves the objections of the major medical associations unspecified. Actually, it’s the major medical associations that object to RODG for that reason, with the EPA being simply the publisher of Ferrara et al. Also it attributes to EPA the conclusion that the issue is still open whereas that is the conclusion of Ferrara et al.

In August 2023 Thompson et al published a literature review which concluded "there continues debate as to whether [adolescent- or rapid-onset gender dysphoria] AOGD is a genuine phenomenon ... it is clear that we simply do not know enough about the observed phenomenon referred to as AOGD", noting Baueur and the rebuttals by Littman and Sinai; The review had initially meant to focus on literature regarding the phenomenon and found an absence of literature, leading to a broader search strategy.[8]

This omits the conflict between Bauer, who said RODG is not a genuine phenomenon, and Thompson, who said that it is “an observed phenomenon.” Also it omits Thompson’s evaluation of the rebuttal of Bauer by Littman and Sinai (“strong”). Also it omits Thompson’s observation about “the huge increase in numbers of adolescents (and especially NF),” which is a point of disagreement with many, and it omits Thompson’s view of the specific type of additional research that is needed: “in natal females,” as well as “comorbidities and long-term outcomes."

A 2022 study by Arnoldussen et al found that evidence was inconclusive as to whether ROGD exists but noted that "our results show that there was gender nonconformity in childhood in older presenters, although less extreme than in the younger presenting group, which speaks against this suggested subtype". It also contextualized Littman's study among previous research which had previously identified subgroups within transgender adolescents, stating "Some adolescents with gender incongruence present with a long history of gender nonconformity from early childhood on (pre-pubertal) but other transgender adolescents declare gender incongruence around or after puberty (peri/post-pubertal). It was usually suggested that most adolescents with a request for medical interventions have a history of early childhood-onset gender incongruence and people with late or post-pubertal gender incongruence present themselves to gender services only later in life".

This omits Arnoldussen’s observation about the possibility of RODG being one gender development pathway subtype. This attributes to Arnoldussen the general statement that the evidence is inconclusive as to whether RODG exists, whereas what they said was that the data of their study did not allow them to reach a conclusion on this. It omits that Arnoldussen likely agrees with Littman’s criticism of Bauer (Littman “pointed out that…”), though I don’t see any convenient way of including something as indistinct as that short of an awkward sentence construction, but it omits Arnoldussen’s observation of Littman’s criticism of Bauer, indicating that this criticism is related to Arnoldussen’s view that Bauer’s study did not resolve the issue. Also, it omits the additional types of studies Aarnoldussen said are needed (those using both self and parent report measures). I don’t understand what the point is of the quote that begins “Some adolescents with…”

Did you have a response to my observation about the other “Research article” studies we cite without requiring a secondary source to interpret them? --Swood100 (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Cohn’s review of Rosenthal and Littman

@Snokalok: You removed the paragraph that reported Cohn’s review of Rosenthal (2021), Littman (2018) and Littman (2021), with the comment, “One person’s opinion paper does not belong in this section for, a wide variety of reasons. Also this isn’t how you cite on wikipedia.” According to WP:SECONDARY, “For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research.” So why doesn’t a review article found in a scholarly journal that evaluates someone else’s original research belong in this section, and where does it belong? Swood100 (talk) 19:44, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

This is Cohn 2023. As should be immediately obvious to anyone reading it, it is not in fact a systematic review or any other sort of review (nor does it claim to be). Rather, it's an attempted rebuttal of another article, Rosenthal 2021. There is no new research or scientific rigor here, and therefore it's just Cohn's professional opinion. Loki (talk) 21:00, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Review articles in the Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy are marked as such. See here for an example, where it is marked "review article". The one you're citing is a "research article" (primary source) by a member of the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine and is a commentary on an Rosenthal (2021) (an actual review article, which noted multiple critiques of ROGD and it's retraction). The paragraph you added was to the section "Professional commentary", which contains large scale professional reactions such as from WPATH, CAAPS, and GDA (apart from Blanchard & Bailey, which should be moved to the "Advocacy groups" section) - it is not a dumping ground for whatever any one person thinks about a topic.

Analyzing the text you added:

• the rise in the number of cases of gender dysphoria in youth, described as "epidemic-like" by French National Academy of Medicine (2022), has yet to be explained, and has raised questions about a possible social contagion of the type referred to by Littman (2018), Anderson (2022a), Anderson (2022b), and Marchiano (2017).
  • Apart from mention of the National Academy of Medicine, this is just repeating the origins of the ROGD hypothesis and tossing in one persons anecdotal experience.
• Cohn said that this hypothesis of psychosocial influences was generated by Littman (2018) and was subsequently bolstered by Littman (2021), and despite criticism from Rosenthal (2021), (who holds that the increase in cases of gender dysphoria does not correspond to an intrinsic rise in the number of cases but is the result of those with gender dysphoria being now more willing to come forward, because of greater societal acceptance), Littman's hypothesis remains a potentially valid explanation for the rise in youth gender dysphoria cases, citing Arnoldussen et al. (2022) and French National Academy of Medicine (2022).
  • First, repetitive, we know were the ROGD theory originated.
  • Second, Rosenthal didn't criticize ROGD, just reviewed the current literature and said: In addition, a putative phenomenon known as rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD), in which gender dysphoria is first expressed by older youth during or after the completion of puberty, has been proposed[126]. However, methodological concerns have been raised regarding the ROGD report (calling into question the existence of ROGD, itself), including the fact that only parents (recruited from websites) and none of the youth with gender dysphoria participated in the study, and that parents were not recruited from websites supportive of transgender youth[127]. The above-noted methodological concerns prompted publication of a correction by the original author[128].

Considering it's a primary source written by someone from an organization known for spreading misinformation (particularly about this unproven hypothesis) and just the authors opinion, the fact it's largely repetitive with information already covered, and the fact it's ranting about criticisms Rosenthal didn't actually make (just cited) it's completely WP:UNDUE. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

While we're here, I also think that both the Ferrara source and the Arnoldussen source are getting far too much WP:WEIGHT, considering both of them could be summarized as "some researchers think more research is needed". Right now we're just saying that they each describe the basic facts of the controversy again, in papers that aren't overall about ROGD, and give a non-committal response to it. Neither appears to be doing any actual significant research into the phenomenon either way. Loki (talk) 21:11, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I would agree with this statement Snokalok (talk) 23:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I would say the Arnoldussen is more robust than that, though not used properly right now in the article (see my suggestion in the section above). They state The aim of this study was to examine whether, ‘younger’ and ‘older’ presenters could be identified in a large cohort of transgender adolescents and if differences exist between the two groups, explore ROGD in the introduction, and in the discussion section compare their study's results with ROGD's hypothesis. Though they state evidence of it's existence is inconclusive, they note their results lean towards it not existing. I feel the Ferrara source merits inclusion, though possibly in "Professional commentary" rather than "Further research" Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:44, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That paragraph was properly removed, for multiple reasons. The entire article by Cohn (Cohn (2023)) is focused solely on a rebuttal of Rosenthal's 2021 paper (Rosenthal (2021)) entitled, "Challenges in the Care of Transgender and Gender-Diverse Youth: An Endocrinologist's View" . That this is so should be clear by looking at the title of Cohn's 2023 paper, "Some Limitations of 'Challenges in the Care of Transgender and Gender-Diverse Youth: An Endocrinologist's View'", quoting the title of the Rosenthal paper (which our article never mentioned previously) in its entirety. A single (PRIMARY) paper criticizing another (i.e., not a "study", but merely one author's opinion about another author's conclusions or opinions) is far from a useful addition to the article. The choice of that one response opinion appears cherry-picked because of some of the other papers Cohn cites, such as the French study. What's worse, most of the content of the paragraph appears to be your own assessment of the merits of ROGD as espoused by Cohn, wrapped up with your concluding sentence that '"Littman's hypothesis remains a potentially valid explanation for the rise in youth gender dysphoria cases..." in Wikipedia's voice. That is completely unwarranted, even were Cohn's paper admissible. Cohn's paper should never have been mentioned in our article in the first place, being purely focused on criticizing one other paper that we never mention, and even if it had been, it's an improper source for this article, and your conclusions were POV. Snokalok's revert of your edit was the right move. Mathglot (talk) 21:24, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Because it’s not a review article, it’s one random person of no established notability ranting about another person’s paper. We might as well start posting tweets from people with Roman statue profile pics as professional input at that point. Snokalok (talk) 23:17, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Consolidated response below.

…it is not in fact a systematic review or any other sort of review (nor does it claim to be).

You’re calling Cohn’s piece a primary source in order to make it not citable in Wikipedia. You would say the same about any article that cited Cohn, and then the same about any article that cited that article, ad infinitum. The question is whether Cohn is discussing, analyzing, and evaluating others' research, or reporting on his own research. Cohn has no data, no methods, no findings. It is obvious from the very title of the piece that Cohn has set out to discuss, analyze and evaluate the research of Rosenthal, making it a secondary source on Rosenthal, and that’s his purpose. He breaks Rosenthal down into five key points that he sets about to analyze. The references for this article are taken from his evaluation of point 2: “The current sharp rise of youth presenting with gender dysphoria does not correspond to an intrinsic rise in cases.”

One person’s opinion paper… There is no new research or scientific rigor here, and therefore it's just Cohn's professional opinion. …tossing in one persons anecdotal experience

You need to provide a source to that effect. The question of scientific rigor is answered by the article’s acceptance and inclusion in a top journal, not by the personal opinions of Wikipedia editors.

this is just repeating the origins of the ROGD hypothesis

The "epidemic-like" characterization of the rise in the number of cases is not mere repetition of something found elsewhere in the article. Neither are the references to Littman (2018), Anderson (2022a), Anderson (2022b), and Marchiano (2017), which describe and give color to the nature of the social contagion that is being referred to. Each of these sources describes it in a unique way. Cohn’s fundamental point is that Rosenthal errs in his conclusion that “the current sharp rise of youth presenting with gender dysphoria does not correspond to an intrinsic rise in cases.” This is not mere repetition.

First, repetitive, we know were the ROGD theory originated.

Cohn agrees with those who say that RODG was generated by Littman (2018). If that were all it said then maybe that would be superfluous. But he goes on to say that the hypothesis “was subsequently bolstered by Littman (2021).” This is the only reference to Littman (2021) in this article, and it provides an evaluation (“bolstered”). This is not repetitive of something found elsewhere in the article.

Second, Rosenthal didn't criticize ROGD, just reviewed the current literature and said…

Rosenthall’s thesis is that the increase in the number of cases does not represent an intrinsic rise in the number of people. He therefore criticizes the notion of a “social contagion,” which is the characterization that Littman uses with respect to RODG. However, I would be happy to change “criticism” to “disagreement,” if you would prefer that.

Considering it's a primary source…

“A review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research.” See WP:SECONDARY.

written by someone from an organization known for spreading misinformation (particularly about this unproven hypothesis)

This is the ad hominem logical fallacy. Please just quote from the writing itself.

and just the authors opinion

The question of scientific rigor and importance is answered by the article’s acceptance and inclusion in a top journal.

the fact it's largely repetitive with information already covered

Please list the repetitions.

I also think that both the Ferrara source and the Arnoldussen source are getting far too much WP:WEIGHT, considering both of them could be summarized as "some researchers think more research is needed". Right now we're just saying that they each describe the basic facts of the controversy again, in papers that aren't overall about ROGD, and give a non-committal response to it. Neither appears to be doing any actual significant research into the phenomenon either way.

Ferrara et al. supplied the reason that the major medical associations do not recognize ROGD and discourage its use: lack of consistent scientific evidence for the concept. Then after citing the position of the major medical associations and the Bauer finding, they nevertheless conclude that the issue is still open, citing Sinai and Littman. This provides another reference to the credibility of Sinai and Littman and another indication of what the weaknesses of Bauer have been asserted to be, and makes clear that according to Ferrara et al., the ROGD issue is not closed despite the position of the major medical associations. All of this is pertinent to this article and non-trivial.

Arnoldussen et al. discussed the possibility of different gender identity developmental pathways, with ROGD being possibly one subtype. Arnoldussen also provides another review of Bauer and “points out” the Littman criticism of it. Their use of this phrase, as LokiTheLiar pointed out, implies that in their opinion Littman is correct in her criticism. The tendency of this is to diminish the credibility of Bauer and increase that of Littman. We don’t go that far in reporting Arnoldussen (though perhaps we should), but we do make clear that according to Arnoldussen, Bauer’s finding did not close the question. Specifically, Arnoldussen thinks more studies using both self and parent report measures are called for. All this goes quite a bit beyond its characterization as “some researchers think more research is needed” and “describe the basic facts of the controversy again” and “give a non-committal response to it.”

…merely one author's opinion about another author's conclusions or opinions) is far from a useful addition to the article. …it’s one random person of no established notability ranting about another person’s paper. We might as well start posting tweets from people with Roman statue profile pics as professional input at that point.

The question of scientific rigor and importance is answered by the article’s acceptance and inclusion in a top journal. Such journals do not accept and publish pieces from “one random person of no established notability ranting about another person’s paper.”

The choice of that one response opinion appears cherry-picked because of some of the other papers Cohn cites, such as the French study.

I’m afraid I don’t follow this.

Cohn's paper should never have been mentioned in our article in the first place, being purely focused on criticizing one other paper that we never mention.

In the process of discussing what he called Rosenthal’s point 2 Cohn contrasted it with Littman’s theory of social contagion.

wrapped up with your concluding sentence that '"Littman's hypothesis remains a potentially valid explanation for the rise in youth gender dysphoria cases..." in Wikipedia's voice. …your conclusions were POV.

If you read that sentence carefully you’ll see that this was not Wikipedia’s voice but Cohn’s. “Cohn said that…Littman’s hypothesis remains a potentially valid explanation…” But it was an awkward sentence and I can see how that could be misconstrued. How about this:

According to Cohn, the rise in the number of cases of gender dysphoria in youth, described as "epidemic-like" by French National Academy of Medicine, has yet to be explained, and has raised questions about a possible social contagion of the type referred to by Littman, Anderson, Anderson, and Marchiano. Cohn said that this hypothesis of psychosocial influences was generated by Littman and was subsequently bolstered by Littman's 2021 study. Rosenthal rejected this hypothesis, holding that the increase in cases of gender dysphoria does not correspond to an intrinsic rise in the number of cases but is the result of those with gender dysphoria being now more willing to come forward, because of greater societal acceptance. According to Cohn, Littman's hypothesis remains a potentially valid explanation for the rise in youth gender dysphoria cases, citing Arnoldussen et al. and French National Academy of Medicine. Swood100 (talk) 03:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I do not find this argument convincing at all and oppose the inclusion of Cohn. We don't have any obligation to WP:SATISFY you if you think a random WP:PRIMARY opinion is a reliable source.

Also, please stop including parenthetical years, along with most in-text mentions of specific papers. Wikipedia cites papers with the cite template, not through APA format. If you need to mention a paper inline, use phrases like a 2018 paper by Littman but you should in general not need to do this because the citations already include the specific papers. Loki (talk) 04:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

In the future, if you have the occasion to inform other editors about this, a reference to WP:PAREN would probably be appreciated. Swood100 (talk) 05:58, 2 January 2024 (UTC) Modified to remove parenthetical referencing. Swood100 (talk) 15:31, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Here’s the definition of a research article:

A research article describes a study that was performed by the article’s author(s). It explains the methodology of the study, such as how data was collected and analyzed, and clarifies what the results mean. Each step of the study is reported in detail so that other researchers can repeat the experiment.

To determine if a paper is a research article, examine its wording. Research articles describe actions taken by the researcher(s) during the experimental process. Look for statements like “we tested,” “I measured,” or “we investigated.” Research articles also describe the outcomes of studies. Check for phrases like “the study found” or “the results indicate.” Next, look closely at the formatting of the article. Research papers are divided into sections that occur in a particular order: abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, and references.

Regardless, the section of Cohn that is being referred to sets out to discuss, analyze and evaluate the research of Rosenthal, thus performing the function of a review. Accordiing to WP:ALLPRIMARY, “Many high-quality sources contain both primary and secondary material.” What are the characteristics of the Cohn references that tell you this is primary source material which would require a secondary source to Cohn in order to properly interpret? Swood100 (talk) 16:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC) Modified above paragraph. Swood100 (talk) 16:11, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Even if the portions of Cohn that are referenced were a primary source, according to WP:PRIMARY:

1. Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.
2. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.
3. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.

The references to Cohn are not interpreting Cohn, his methods or his findings. They are reporting, in a straightforward manner, what he said about Littman, Rosenthall, French National Academy, Arnoldussen, Anderson and Marchiano. Swood100 (talk) 16:31, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS: Ideal sources for biomedical information include: review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals; and Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content. Standards are stricter on medical articles. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:SECONDARY says: A review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research (emphasis added).

Cohn 2023 is not, as you insist, a review article. It is a research paper (primary source) commenting on an actual review article. It says so at the top of the article. Just because he's commenting on others doesn't make it WP:SECONDARY and WP:MEDRS-compliant. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:34, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

But let’s look at the distinction WP:MEDRS makes between primary and secondary sources “in the biomedical literature”:

• A primary source is one in which the authors directly participated in the research and documented their personal experiences. They examined the patients, injected the rats, ran the experiments, or supervised those who did. Many papers published in medical journals are primary sources for facts about the research and discoveries made.
• A secondary source summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources to provide an overview of current understanding of the topic, to make recommendations, or to combine results of several studies. Examples include literature reviews or systematic reviews found in medical journals, specialist academic or professional books, and medical guidelines or position statements published by major health organizations.

Isn’t it clear that Cohn falls under the description of a secondary source? Furthermore, WP:MEDRS says that primary sources should generally not be used for medical content “as such sources often include unreliable or preliminary information; for example, early lab results that do not hold in later clinical trials.” None of that is relevant to Cohn. And even if the Cohn article is a research article, that doesn't mean that it can't contain secondary source material. Below are the original statements from Cohn that we are citing. Which of them would require a secondary source in order to properly interpret it?

• The “epidemic-like” rise (French National Academy of Medicine, 2022) of gender dysphoria in youth is viewed as an open puzzle
• with questions being raised about possible relations to social contagion (Anderson, 2022a; 2022b; Littman, 2018; Marchiano, 2017).
• [Rosenthal] repeats criticisms of the study (Littman, 2018) that generated this hypothesis,
• This psychosocial contribution hypothesis has since been bolstered by a peer reviewed study with first person reports (Littman, 2021).
• [Rosenthal] calls the rise “a notable change in our understanding of the TGD population” (p. 583), suggesting it is only the understanding, not the population, that is changing. He lists reasons for the rise (as fact) which describe why those with gender dysphoria might now be more likely to come forward or to be diagnosed, e.g., greater acceptance.
• The potential validity of Littman’s hypothesis, possible contribution to the rise in cases, and unclear relation to Rosenthal’s (2021) hypothesized fundamental gender identity remain (Arnoldussen et al., 2022; French National Academy of Medicine, 2022). Swood100 (talk) 17:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

This article contains a source called A critical commentary on ‘rapid-onset gender dysphoria’ that is cited five times, including in the opening sentence. If you click on that source you will see that it is classified as a “Research article.” Do we need to remove that source from the article and instead look for a secondary source to interpret it and explain to us what it is driving at? Swood100 (talk) 20:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

The same is true of the source The untimeliness of trans youth: The temporal construction of a gender ‘disorder’, cited three times. I’m not going to take the time to go through the entire list but if that is our criterion for inclusion then there are going to have to be some modifications to the sourcing of this article (and probably many other articles as well). --Swood100 (talk) 20:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Ashley 2020 is cited in nearly every review article that discusses ROGD. Her response is almost as famous as the original ROGD article itself. That being said, you could remove citations 1a, 1b, and 1e without changing any text in the article.

Now considering Cohn 2023, he has been cited exactly twice. Once in one primary study[7] that doesn't consider his views on ROGD significant and once in another primary article[8], unsurprisingly by fellow members of known psuedoscience generator SEGM ranting about how gender-affirming care is dangerous. Yes, the fact SEGM is known for spreading misinformation about ROGD is important here.

The first problem with your paragraph is the According to Cohn - put simply, the WP:PRIMARY opinion of one member of a WP:FRINGE group is completely WP:UNDUE. There are no scientific reviews studies saying "he had a point here". It's him ranting about an actual secondary scientific review.

Paraphrasing what you wrote: According to Cohn, the fact there are more trans kids getting medical care these days as described by Littman, a Jungian psycoanalyst, and an opinion piece raise questions kids catch trans from each other. Cohn said that Littman came up with this and helped prove it in another study 3 years later. Rosenthal (an actual secondary scientific review) said there aren't more trans kids, just more social acceptance. According to Cohn, Littman may be right because Arnoldussen et al and the French National Academy of Medicine said maybe she is. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 02:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Latest edit to history section

@Equivamp I think you made the right call to revert this edit in the first place and encourage you to do so again. To cut through the mess on this talk page:

1. Swood has not mentioned these sources at all, he's been arguing about including other primary sources editors have repeatedly told him are unnaceptable for the article.
2. The content he added is OR and SYNTH in addition to being dramatic. The first source added doesn't mention ROGD at all as it was published before the original ROGD study. The second source is what the text was based on The meteoric rise of gender dysphoria that the ROGD hypothesis attempts to explain emerged around 2014 [2], coinciding with the explosion of social media, but does not claim to be a proponent of the theory. Both are letters to the editor.
3. The image added was created by Swood100 based on the first letter to the editor. As such I highly question it's relevance and validity.

Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 04:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I just re-reverted it. Loki (talk) 05:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Swood100 - why on earth is one person's letter to the editor WP:DUE? It is a WP:PRIMARY source and fails WP:MEDRS. I strongly recommend you self-revert. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

As the talk page consensus is pretty unambiguously against this edit, I've re-re-reverted it.

I don't frankly have a lot to add here: yes, a letter to the editor is a bad source, because it isn't even peer reviewed and so is therefore not reliable for facts. Certainly it's not a WP:MEDRS source. Loki (talk) 22:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• Agree that a letter to the editor is completely inappropriate here. In addition, as far as I can tell, the other source that was added makes no mention of Turban or RoGD; using it here at all, let alone to try and "rebut" someone, is obvious WP:OR / WP:SYNTH. --Aquillion (talk) 20:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I don’t understand what you mean that it is not WP:DUE, or what your motive might be in wanting to keep this information out of the article. This is a letter in a reputable scientific journal that references what I thought was an undisputed demographic fact: the increase in the number of people referred for gender dysphoria. Do you doubt that the numbers shown in the chart are correct? I don’t think there is anyone who disputes the increase in numbers. What they dispute is the reason for it. Do you doubt that this increase was the motivation behind the development of the ROGD hypothesis, or that the increase is relevant to this article? These are simply fundamental facts. What is your objection? --Swood100 (talk) 20:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

A letter to the editor doesn't receive any peer-review or fact-checking; therefore, there is no basis to say that the inferences and connections they draw in that letter are based on anything or have any meaningful weight - it is, at most, their attributable opinion, and that only if their opinion is significant enough to mention. In this case the author seems to have no background in gender-based medicine (this letter to the editor is the only thing I could find connecting them to it; all their other work is in totally unrelated fields), meaning their opinion about this topic has no value. Furthermore, in a more general sense, WP:NPOV means that our article's weight and focus on a topic should reflect reliable sourcing in accordance to the quality of those sources and the weight they are WP:DUE. Taking a letter to the editor and treating its author's personal opinions as a defining analysis of the entire topic is giving it undue weight relative to the other, higher-quality sources in the article. This is especially true when you combine it with a graph from an unrelated source, increasing its visual weight further and giving readers the impression that this is a major defining feature of the entire subject. Or, in other words - why are you so insistent that this paper be included? Reasons for including an WP:RSOPINION source like this might include its significance (ie. it has been widely-quoted and cited in high-quality sources) or the expertise of its author (ie. the author is a subject-matter expert who has published peer-reviewed stuff previously on the topic.) Neither seems true here, so I think it'd make more sense to drop this and look for better sources on the subject. --Aquillion (talk) 20:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

...there is no basis to say that the inferences and connections they draw in that letter are based on anything or have any meaningful weight ...meaning their opinion about this topic has no value.

The fact that it was accepted for publication in a reputable scientific journal gives it value. The editors of the journal concluded that this person’s scientific opinion deserved to be published in their journal. What references to the contrary do you have?

Taking a letter to the editor and treating its author's personal opinions as a defining analysis of the entire topic is giving it undue weight relative to the other, higher-quality sources in the article.

In the first place I didn’t declare that these facts are more or less important than any other facts in this article. Rosenthal does a whole study related to this increase. Are there other sources in this article or elsewhere who dispute the increase in the numbers or who doubt that the increase was the motivation behind the development of the ROGD hypothesis? What other sources in this article are in conflict with this information? Are you saying that the increase is irrelevant? What’s the issue here? Swood100 (talk) 21:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The fact that it was accepted for publication in a reputable scientific journal gives it value. The editors of the journal concluded that this person’s scientific opinion deserved to be published in their journal. What references to the contrary do you have?

No it does not. Checking their publication policy, there is no peer-review for letters to the editor. This source is so far from WP:MEDRS requirements the distance can be measured in astronomical units. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I am really astounded that adding the increase in numbers would provoke such strenuous opposition. I never expected that. --Swood100 (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

If you're astounded it's only because of your WP:IDONTHEARTHAT behavior when multiple editors have tried to explain to you how WP:MEDRS works. IE, sourcing something to a letter to the editor is not, never has been, and never will be, MEDRS-compliant. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

How about answering my questions? --Swood100 (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

A valid source doesn't need to be peer-reviewed. The review is done by the editors of the journal. --Swood100 (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

A letter to the editor is just a letter from someone. It's not sufficient as a source here. Hist9600 (talk) 00:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Why do you object to including the increase in numbers and that that is the impetus behind ROGD? --Swood100 (talk) 23:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

To some extent we do mention it, further down: Some clinicians state that an increasing prevalence of trans youth first presenting in early adolescence, as described in Littman's research, is consistent with their patient population, though they are uncertain as to causes or implications for clinical treatment. But we use more cautious wording and put less emphasis on it (in keeping with the limited sourcing relative to overall coverage, and their own cautious wording within those sources). The issue is that your edits are repeatedly trying to add it as if it's a core, central aspect of the topic and the universally-agreed-upon "impetus" for Littman's argument, despite the source you're using being far worse (just one sentence in a letter to the editor from someone with no relevant expertise, combined with sources that make no mention of RoGD at all.) If this was really such a central aspect of the topic, you'd be able to find better sources for it than a single offhand sentence in a letter to the editor. Aquillion (talk) 04:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

The revert of your edit was appropriate, per WP:Original research and other policies. Your first reference, Kulatunga-Moruzi (2023), is a letter to the editor, and while it is tempting to argue on your turf and discuss whether the Turban study did or didn't "fail to refute" ROGD, that would be falling into the trap of we, as editors, debating what researchers are saying in primary sources as opposed to simply summarizing what the WP:SECONDARY sources say about it; so, I'll not state my opinion on the letter because my opinion is completely irrelevant, as is yours, and that of every other editor. It is simply not our place to debate the "increase in numbers" and whether or not "that is the impetus behind ROGD" as you have suggested, because that is original research and is prohibited in the article as OR, and off-topic for discussion on this Talk page per WP:NOTFORUM. If you have secondary sources that discuss this that you believe are not fairly represented in the article, you are more than welcome to raise that here.

Your second reference, deGraaf et al (2018), never mentions ROGD at all. If you think it is relevant to this article because of statistics showing an increase in prevalence of GD among adolescents, then once again, that is completely off-limits for this article, because it is you—a Wikipedia editor—making that connection, even though nobody in the article does so. That is pure SYNTH (a form of original research), and is prohibited. Our role as editors is not to unearth these possible associations and raise them in articles; that might make a great Masters Thesis, but is anathema here. Mathglot (talk) 10:29, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

As far as this comment:

How about answering my questions?

I would say that numerous editors have been spending a lot of time patiently answering your questions, without reaching any kind of mutually satisfactory conclusions, and imho your question is indicative of a wish to endlessly debate the topic from a minority position of one. It seems clear to me that there is a rough consensus about this now, and that your views are in the minority, and that at some point, there is no further need to respond endlessly to your questions when consensus has already been established. I believe we are at that point now, so respectfully, I for one will not be responding further to your questions on this point, as I feel they have been answered adequately already, and that further discussion is beating a dead horse and a waste of editor time. Other editors may feel differently. Other approaches to dispute resolution are available to you, if you feel you're not getting satisfaction here, such as WP:3O, and WP:Mediation. Mathglot (talk) 10:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Comment: in some journals letters to the editor are peer reviewed. But idk if that’s relevant here. Zenomonoz (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

In an interview Lisa Littman explained that what motivated her to study gender dysphoria and ultimately to develop the ROGD hypothesis was the “striking increase,” in the preceding decade, in teens announcing transgender identities, and having a predominance of natal female teens. The interview, dated 19 March 2019, is in Quillette which, while it may not be reliable for factual claims, can be reliable for attributed opinions:

I became interested in studying gender dysphoria when I observed, in my own community, an unusual pattern whereby teens from the same friend group began announcing transgender identities on social media, one after the other, on a scale that greatly exceeded expected numbers. ...Also during the last decade, there has been a dramatic change in the patients presenting to clinics for gender dysphoria—including a striking increase in teens, with a predominance of natal female teens.

I was surprised that no one had yet explored potential contributors to the recent dramatic demographic and clinical changes in adolescents seeking care for gender dysphoria. I believe that when a population seeking care for a condition drastically changes, it is the responsibility of the clinicians and researchers to start asking questions. Why is this change happening? Is the condition in the new population different from the condition in past populations?

Another source with the same description of the origin of the RODG hypothesis is Chan Kulatunga-Moruzi, who said, “The meteoric rise of gender dysphoria that the ROGD hypothesis attempts to explain emerged around 2014, coinciding with the explosion of social media.” (The title of this source talks about refuting Turban et al. but I did not include any of that—only her reference to what the RODG hypothesis is attempting to explain. What she says about Turban et al. is irrelevant to this.) As with Littman, this presented a scientist’s opinion as to what was the impetus behind the development of the RODG hypothesis.

The graphic that I included came from a study cited by Kulatunga-Moruzi. That study is not about ROGD. More than one person said, “Since that study doesn't mention ROGD it is not relevant to this article.” But that study is cited to illustrate the population changes that Littman and Kulatunga-Moruzi said fueled the desire to look for an explanation, and which ultimately led to the ROGD hypothesis, so it doesn't need to mention ROGD to be relevant. One person objected that it was labeled “Letters to the editor,” and so it seems that there was no quality control. However, this designation in Archives of Sexual Behavior appears to be subject to the same double-blind peer review as the other formal submissions to that journal. In the case of this letter, it was received 12 Feb 2018, Accepted 21 March 2018, published 25 April 2018. In any event, I don't think the accuracy of the population numbers is in dispute—there are countless other sources that could be cited to show the same trends, such as this one or this one.

The numbers alone obviously do not prove that ROGD is a valid hypothesis. Other scientists have no problem explaining them in ways that don't involve RODG. For example, Rosenthal attributes the “exponential increase in referrals to youth gender centres in recent years” to more than one factor:

“A number of factors have contributed to this surge: a broader acceptance and de-stigmatization of gender diversity in some parts of the world (with increasing media visibility); compelling evidence that biology contributes to gender identity development (with the correlate that gender identity, like sexual orientation, is ingrained and not a ‘choice’); the recognition by professional mental health societies that being transgender (previously referred to as having a ‘gender identity disorder’) should no longer be considered a mental illness, but rather represents an example of human diversity; and the emergence of scientific data demonstrating the clear mental health — even life-saving — benefits of gender-affirming care. ...a report from the Netherlands noted that this increase in referrals was consistent with the thought that there is now less stigma in seeking help for gender dysphoria...”

Aitken et al. has a similar list to explain this increase, and then goes on to provide a number of potential explanations as to why natal females predominate. One of them is that it is easier for natal females to “come out” as male since masculine behavior in females is subject to less social sanction and bullying than is feminine behavior in males.

This might be a good place in the article to talk about those other explanations for the increase in gender dysphoria. I would be happy to add that part of it, and I am fully open to any type of reasonable presentation. But if this increase was part of what drove the development of the ROGD hypothesis, as the developers of that hypothesis assert, then why would that be deemed irrelevant to this article? Swood100 (talk) 02:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I’m a bit confused here. Lots of these articles do not even seem to mention Littman? Zenomonoz (talk) 03:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

These just seem like variations on a now well-worn theme, that aren't going to change opinions much. I've responded to non-content issues at your Talk page.^[perma] Mathglot (talk) 05:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Lots of these articles do not even seem to mention Littman?

It is simply not our place to debate the "increase in numbers" and whether or not "that is the impetus behind ROGD" as you have suggested, because that is original research and is prohibited in the article as OR

Here is my reasoning:

1. Littman was the one who coined the term ROGD and who popularized the ROGD hypothesis.
2. We have a reliable, published source quoting Littman as saying that it was “the recent dramatic demographic and clinical changes in adolescents seeking care for gender dysphoria” that motivated her to study these changes and to develop the ROGD hypothesis. In particular, she said, “during the last decade, there has been a dramatic change in the patients presenting to clinics for gender dysphoria.”
3. It is not WP:Original research to then cite studies that independently describe the change, during the decade to which she referred, in the patients presenting to clinics for gender dysphoria, and report that this change motivated Littman in coming up with the ROGD hypothesis.

At what point does disagreement arise, and what is that disagreement? --Swood100 (talk) 19:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

The issue is that you're apparently the only person who believes these are worthwhile additions. At a certain point, you have to understand that consensus is against you and you need to WP:DROPTHESTICK. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:19, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, above the objection was made that this is WP:Original research. Does anybody still object on that ground? When you say that they are not “worthwhile additions,” do you mean that Littman’s motivations in developing the ROGD hypothesis are not relevant to this article? --Swood100 (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Good lord. These objections have been explained to you repeatedly, we're just going around in circles now. Drop the stick and move on. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:Original research. WP:DUEWEIGHT. WP:NOTFORUM. WP:SATISFY. Please stop. Mathglot (talk) 23:53, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Objections were made, above, and I answered them:

• The objection was made that Kulatunga-Moruzi was disqualified as a reference since her statement apparently received no peer review and because her relationship to this field was undemonstrated. Therefore, there was no valid connection between (a) the changes in the types of patients presenting to clinics for gender dysphoria, and (b) the development of the ROGD hypothesis.
• I responded by pointing out that the Kulatunga-Moruzi statement had been peer-reviewed, and also by adding the statement by Lisa Littman. Littman’s statement and her connection to the ROGD hypothesis made the necessary connection, so there was no WP:SYNTH.

However, Mathglot responded as if I had not provided anything new. And HandThatFeeds responded as if all along the real issue has not been the objections that were presented but rather was that others don’t think that these are “worthwhile additions,” presumably because this material would add an aspect to this article that the existing editors don’t want it to have. Is that what this comes down to? --Swood100 (talk) 00:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Responded to non-content issue at your Talk page. Mathglot (talk) 00:51, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Your answers were not sufficient to change consensus on this matter. Yes, that's what this comes down to. You made an argument, everyone else disagreed. Your options now are to drop the matter, or pursue WP:DR dispute resolution. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Addition of more OR

Swood100, the paragraph you have just added is almost entirely OR and I ask you to self-revert.

You are expanding one sentence of Littman's correction: the substantial change in the demographics of patients presenting for care, the inversion of the sex ratio with disproportionate increase in adolescent natal females [3–5], and the new phenomenon of natal females exhibiting adolescent-onset and late-onset gender dysphoria [6–8] signal that something new may be happening as well.

It is OR to go into such level of detail about various studies she cited as you did - you have written more about them than Littman herself did. If you want to add "Littman cited a change in the demographics of trans kids seeking care as a motivation for her study", find a WP:MEDRS source that notes it. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I see Sideswipe9th just reverted. Please keep in mind the last sentence of my above comment and read through WP:MEDRS. I also think it would be best if you ran proposed additions by the talk page first from now on. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:58, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, this seemed wildly WP:UNDUE. We already describe the corrected version via numerous high-quality cites, and devote two truly massive block quotes to Littman's statements cited solely to her as a primary source. Truthfully, we should probably trim down those blockquotes as it is. Adding yet more things cited directly to Littman, let alone things that aren't even part of her main conclusions, is extremely undue. For something with so much secondary coverage, there's no need to devote so much text to a primary source. --Aquillion (talk) 19:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  Not only undue, but there was I felt a borderline case of WP:OR in there too. Highlighting and quoting specific individual citations that Littman selected as supporting her hypothesis is not really our role. It's enough for us to say that a correction was published, and that Littman had some comments on that process. Including them in that manner kinda begs the question of "why are we highlighting this set of citations and not this other set?" Ascertaining whether or not the citations or the corrected paper supports Littman's hypothesis is the role of secondary and independent sources, and that is something we already cover elsewhere in the article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 29 January 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – Hilst [talk] 21:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

---

Survey

Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy → Rapid-onset gender dysphoria – Mainstream scientific consensus is strongly against ROGD being a real diagnosis, and the content of the article reflects that. Calling it a controversy is in violation of Wikipedia's policies on neutrality. Political groups WANT it to be a controversy so that they can imply that ROGD has any medical support, but that doesn't make it actually scientifically controversial. Calling the page "Rapid-onset gender dysphoria" does not make any claims as to the acceptance, scientific or political, of ROGD. LesbianTiamat (talk) 07:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. This article is about a controversy, it isn't about a syndrome, true or false. The OP claim of an NPOV violation is a red herring; calling it a controversy isn't POV, because the majority of the 66 sources attest to the fact that it is a controversy. Per WP:Article title policy: "The title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles." Under the current title, the content of the article matches the content, as virtually all of it has to do with the controversy surrounding the paper, without which the paper itself would fail WP:Notability threshold. The entire article is about the controversy around the publication and subsequent correction; the controversy around Brown University publicizing it, removing it, and the subsequent criticism of Brown; the controversy around the reactions from transgender groups and the scientific community slamming the data-gathering, the population, the methodology, and the conclusions; and the equally vociferous support from advocacy groups and culture warriors from the right—they are all about the controversy. Almost the entire article is about the shouting of opinions from all sides, there is virtually nothing here about the science around an alleged syndrome. Renaming this would cause a mismatch between title and content, and that would be a violation of WP:Article title policy. Mathglot (talk) 08:24, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

  Mathglot, this is your 21st comment on this talk page. You're dominating the discussion with these Gish gallops, and should back off so others have room to speak.

  The article generally speaks of "ROGD" as a syndrome, not "the ROGD controversy." The word "controversy" appears only 3 times in the article, and only one instance is using it as you describe.

  The current title is promoting the idea that there is real scientific controversy surrounding ROGD. There is not: Scientific consensus is in, and it is that ROGD is not a real thing.

  The content of the article reflects this, and it is time to bring the title in line. LesbianTiamat (talk) 09:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

  Mathglot, FWIW, when one "side" is transgender groups and the scientific community slamming the data-gathering, the population, the methodology, and the conclusions and the other is advocacy groups and culture warriors from the right, you don't have a "controversy". You stated there is virtually nothing here about the science around an alleged syndrome, but the scientific community slamming the data-gathering, the population, the methodology, and the conclusions is literally the science around [it]. The title containing "controversy" immediately puts me in mind of Teach the controversy, because we could move Global warming to the Global warming controversy if we equate the scientific community saying one thing with Fox news insisting otherwise. I do think a source review would be a good idea, because as far as I can tell the term "controversy/controversial" was mostly only used in a few lay newspapers before the post-publication review and statements from multiple major health bodies. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

  Good comment; my thoughts about this in the § Discussion section below. Mathglot (talk) 00:32, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Echo reasons of Mathglot. This article is about a controversy, the history of that controversy, and constructed from polarised opinions, which have no clear consensus yet.

Void if removed (talk) 10:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Repeating Steensma & de Vries citation from discussion above:

our data do not allow us to conclude whether or not this suggested ‘ROGD’ subtype exists [...] More studies using both self and parent report measures would be needed to gain better insight in the existence of the ‘ROGD’ subtype.

Void if removed (talk) 14:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Lack of absolute certainty within the mainstream scientific community does not mean that there is a controversy.

It is just how science works. If scientists spent all day investigating every detail of every idea that quacks come up with, they would never get anything done.

More importantly, Wikipedia does not require absolute certainty. The scientific consensus is that ROGD is made-up nonsense, and this is thoroughly demonstrated by the article's sources.

Let's take a look at the part you snipped out from that quote:

Our results show that there was gender nonconformity in childhood in older presenters, although less extreme than in the younger presenting group, which speaks against this suggested subtype.

So the paper you're saying provides support for there being scientific controversy regarding ROGD, does not actually support that. It just is saying that they are following the scientific method. LesbianTiamat (talk) 23:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

The very next sentence starts with However...

You are misrepresenting this source, which in no way demonstrates what you are alleging, and with nothing like the strength for what you are trying to claim.

The scientific consensus is that ROGD is made-up nonsense

Please, demonstrate this with WP:MEDRS. I've already shown a 6 month old meta-analysis that absolutely does not say it is "made up nonsense". Do you have a retraction notice for that? Void if removed (talk) 09:46, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose ROGD is not a real diagnosis, and moving the article to the proposed title gives it too much credence. Keeping it at the "controversy" page is the most proper title, as this is entirely about the back-and-forth attempt by political forces to brand gender dysphoria as a "social contagion." The controversy is the focus of the article, ROGD itself is unsupported claptrap. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

  To be clear, that is the reason that I want to move the page - I believe that the word "controversy" gives this nonsense far too much credence. It implies that there is serious disagreement among people whose opinions matter, like scientists.

  Framing it as a controversy polarizes the public on an already-determined issue. LesbianTiamat (talk) 21:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

  First off, I suggest you not reply to each of these comments, as that can be taken as bludgeoning the discussion.

  Second, as you'll note, most people responding have the opposite view. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. To do so would give undue credibility in wikivoice to something that every major med organization decries as the opposite. Snokalok (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Gender studies has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject LGBT studies has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose - I do not believe "controversy" accurately covers the situation, but I agree with Snokalok and The Hand That Feeds You that removing it makes this bunk seem marginally more scientifically accepted. I wouldn't be opposed to something like "Rapid-onset gender dysphoria panic" though. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose as it stands Weak support, but I would rather support a move to a title that more accurately reflects the fact that ROGD is a completely unscientific and false concept. Neither title really does it for me. WindTempos ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC) Changed vote after thinking about it a little harder. WindTempos ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:46, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support for three reasons. Number one is that the WP:COMMONNAME of this topic is pretty obviously "rapid-onset gender dysphoria". Number two is that it's not really the case that ROGD is merely "controversial"; it is at this point fully WP:FRINGE. Number three and most importantly is that while in some cases we do note fringe status in titles (e.g. moon landing conspiracy theories), in the large majority of cases we don't (e.g. acquired homosexuality, Baghdad battery, chromotherapy, dowsing, eugenics... I'm seriously just scrolling down Category:Pseudoscience here). Especially because of the abundant examples of cases where we have a WP:COMMONNAME title but extremely strong language marking the subject as pseudoscience in the lead I don't agree that referring to ROGD as ROGD gives any credibility to it. It's just what it's called. Loki (talk) 00:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, as other editors have said, ROGD is not a legitimate diagnosis or actual subset of gender dysphoria recognized by any credible medical authority or institution. From its inception as a concept, it has never been viewed as a legitimate diagnosis or condition. The article itself is also principally about the controversial history of ROGD. Iscargra (talk) 16:28, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Support. As mentioned by many others, not only is there not much of a "controversy" to begin with, with ROGD not being accepted by mainstream science, but the article doesn't go into detail about the controversy. Possibly a section could be dedicated to the "controversy", but the entire article should certainly not include it in the title. - TransButterflyQueen Ɛï3 17:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Weak oppose. I disagree that the current title serves to legitimise or perpetuate the controversy. The word "controversy" can refer either to an ongoing controversy or a settled one. This being the latter doesn't make the title incorrect. Renaming the article could be just as bad. People seeing the title "Rapid-onset gender dysphoria", and not looking at the article, could get the impression that the title refers to an actual existent thing particularly if an external source choses to present it to them in that light as part of a Gish Gallop. In 20 years time the article will probably be called something like "Rapid-Onset Gender Dysphoria conspiracy theory" or "Rapid-Onset Gender Dysphoria moral panic" but we don't have the sources to support that, yet. If we are going to change it at all, I'd recommend maybe capitalising it as "Rapid-Onset Gender Dysphoria controversy" to make it clear that ROGD is a proper noun, a name for a proposed entity, and not a description. That said, it's such a marginal thing that it might be better to just leave it as it is. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Support. The current title is indeed political and confusing. Whether or not you believe that "rapid onset gender dysphoria" is a real phenomenon or not is irrelevant - it's a theory that is well-known in the public consciousness. The reality is that when people are searching for information about it this topic on Wikipedia, this is the name they will be searching for, and they will expect an article to exist on this topic, regardless of its scientific merits. For this reason alone, the article should be renamed to what should have always been the proper title.

I can't believe how illogical WP editors are sometimes. Hooky6 (talk) 01:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

User:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist made a good comment above, which I wanted to respond to without interpolating a long comment into the Survey section. I understand your concern due to the possible bleed-over taint from "Teach the controversy". Reminds me of "Save the children", which is first and foremost the reputable Save the Children organization, but I assume you know about what happened to the phrase afterward; an example of "bad meaning drives out the good" (a corollary of Gresham's law known in linguistics as pejoration; the contrary tendency is reappropriation). A good question to ask in the wake of something like that, i.e., a pejorative appropriation or association to an otherwise neutral expression (i.e., controversy), is how should we deal with such a situation at Wikipedia? Don't know that there's any policy guidance on something like this, but it's at least illustrative to look at how the Save the Children article handled it: interestingly, they don't mention the taint-by-conspiracy at all (unless I missed it), whereas some of our legit conspiracy articles do mention the save the children tag and conspiracy phrasing. For the sake of argument, let's say your taint concern might be a serious objection to the current title: how would propose to handle the situation? Mathglot (talk) 00:32, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

To be honest, I think the body and lead need more work before the title is touched. There's clear consensus is that it's bunk, and I think it's a little humorous that a lot of editors are supporting and opposing the move based on whether the title will clarify that. To me, that means the content of the article isn't clear enough.

I've been somewhat swayed by Loki's !vote above, since Acquired homosexuality is almost a perfect map to this article's subject. However, the first sentence of the lead Controversy surrounds the concept of rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD), a scientifically unsupported proposed subtype of gender dysphoria said to be caused by peer influence and social contagion. weighs against that, due to the pejoration of "controversy", unless we change the first paragraph to something more descriptive along the lines of: Rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD) is a term coined by Lisa Littman in 2016 to refer to a proposed subtype of gender dysphoria said to be caused by peer influence and social contagion. ROGD is not been recognized by any major professional association as a valid mental health diagnosis, who discourage it's use due to a lack of reputable scientific evidence for the concept, major methodological issues in existing research, and likelihood to cause harm by stigmatizing gender-affirming care. The paper proposing the concept was based on reports from parents on gender-critical websites and after it's publication it was re-reviewed and a correction was issued due to sever methodological flaws and bias. Conservative and Gender-Critical advocacy groups have frequently cited it to attempt to restrict or criminalize gender-affirming care for transgender youth. (frankly, the second 2 paragraphs of the lead are already extranous and would be doubly so if the lead were reduced to 1 paragraph like that).

Per all that, I'll be making some bold additions today and tagging overreliance on primary sources. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I really like this, actually! I think it adds to the article in a meaningful way, moreso than changing the actual title would. Thank you @Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist, your work is much appreciated! - TransButterflyQueen Ɛï3 00:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I like this. It makes the real situation clear. I support changing the beginning to Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ's version. LesbianTiamat (talk) 01:46, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

YFNS, your new version removed the word controversy from the lead sentence. In fact, your proposed lead paragraph contains four sentences, and the term controversy appears nowhere at all in it. Was that your intention? Mathglot (talk) 08:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Hey, @Mathglot aren't we supposed to Wikipedia:Assume good faith with our fellow contributors? I doubt @Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist had any ulterior motives- the title should probably come second to the actual contents of the article. Additionally, the lead should reflect the contents of the article - and as mentioned previously the word "controversy" Is only used 3 times in this article, including the lead. Regardless of the title, the lead should reflect the content of the article, should it not? Take my response with a grain of salt, however, as I am in favor of the renaming. - TransButterflyQueen Ɛï3 14:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I fail to see why you bring up WP:AGF in response to a straightforward question? Void if removed (talk) 14:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

To me it just seemed as if Mathglot was accusing YFNS of intentionally proposing an alternate lead to provide leverage for changing the title. I realize now that I may have misread the situation, however, and possibly ignored Wikipedia:Assume the assumption of good faith in the process. TransButterflyQueen Ɛï3 14:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I do want to quickly note that though this is a controversial topic area, AGF is important (and I'm glad you recognized that). Mathglot is one of my favorite colleagues on this project, he helped onboard me when I first joined Wikipedia and does quite a lot of great work at the intersection of WP:GENSEX and medical topics. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification! I realize I can get carried away trying to help sometimes. - TransButterflyQueen Ɛï3 17:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, my intent was to make the controversy (in the pre-perjorated sense of the word) itself clear, as the word "controversy", particularly in the first sentence, and generally the poor flow of the current lead, fail to actually cover the scope of the controversy. That version (or rough draft of one) works for either the title "rapid onset gender dysphoria" (the term (and it's history)) or "rapid onset gender dysphoria controversy" (the history of the term) as it's easier to walk away and know the term and circumstances surrounding it.

I've also been reading a lot of the sources, and am further questioning the title containing controversy: most sources refer explicitly to the "term" ROGD, then will cover it and/or it's history, with the few saying "controversy" being the ones closer to the original publication (the dominant phrase at this point seems to actually be misinformation/pseudoscience). Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

That actually reads much more clearly than the existing version. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 10:45, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lead sentence

@Mathglot: in response to this revert, sorry I couldn't find any discussion in the archives specifically on why the lead sentence is structured like this. Do you have a link to where it was discussed? Just don't understand why it would have been decided to word it in such a roundabout way instead of directly stating what ROGD is to start with. Thanks! Shapeyness (talk) 13:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I assume we are talking about Talk:Rapid-onset_gender_dysphoria_controversy/Archive_6#NPOV_dispute. That is what I get when I search the Talk Page archives for "Controversy surrounds". Maybe there is more than that though? --DanielRigal (talk) 14:50, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

It's just bad. There does not appear to be a purpose for it. I fixed it. LesbianTiamat (talk) 18:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I've removed undiscussed changes that added unsupported original research to the defining sentence of the article. This article is one of the most contentious topics in the already designated contentious topics area of gender-related topics. The change to the WP:LEADSENTENCE by LesbianTiamat is a complete no-go, with a edit summary that failed to mention the addition of wording that defines ROGD as pseudoscience, an explosive assertion in Wikipedia's voice which is unsupported WP:Original research. The article body makes no such statement, and there is certainly no citation for it in the body. As the lead summarizes the body, this is off-limits for the lead, much less the defining sentence.

As far as the "Controversy surrounds" wording, it's possible that could be improved, and this page is the proper place to discuss that. I'm against fronting the term ROGD in the definition and pushing the term controversy after it, or out of the sentence entirey, as this whole topic is about the controversy. Fronting ROGD makes it appear that is a thing, or at least, a notable topic on its own, even if not settled science yet, as if maybe it just generated some controversy along the way worthy of discussion, like, say, in the way Einstein's 1905 special theory did. But there is no support for that syndrome-first view; this topic is all about the controversy, which is the central theme of the article, with people on all sides in high dudgeon on one side or another of the controversy, and all loudly declaiming their point of view. It is first and last a controversy; without the controversy, there is no article, as the controversy is the only thing that give the topic notability. Hundreds of "proposed diagnoses" or "syndromes" or what-have-you are coined and published on PLOS and in other journals; that's how a young researcher gets a name for themselves, if it catches on, so you can't blame them. But 99.9% of neologisms in academic articles either sink into obscurity, or retain some niche support within their own field but never get anywhere close to having a whole Wikipedia article about them, because they lack the notability for it.

There are probably thousands of articles on dysphoria-related topics; there is zero chance that this one, published in PLOS in 2018, would ever have a dedicated Wikipedia article about it, had it not provoked nationwide and international controversy. The lead sentence needs to reflect that, however we word it; pushing the term controversy to second billing is not the way to do that, in my opinion, although I'm open to any change that preserves the essential nature of this topic as a controversy. Mathglot (talk) 04:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources that call ROGD pseudoscientific, so it's not original research, but I'd encourage anyone looking to add the term to get solid consensus before doing so. We had a well-attended and hotly debated RfC in 2022 which ended in no consensus. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

While I agree with much of what you've said Mathglot, this wasn't OR. The SPLC report that LesbianTiamat cited at the end of the sentence explicitly states that far-right and anti-trans researchers have taken control of the narrative with pseudoscience like ROGD (emphasis mine). Now while that report on its own wouldn't be enough to support changing the lead, in conjunction with the array of sources presented in the September/October 2022 RfC that also describe it as pseudoscience, as well as any new papers that have been published in the last two years that also call it pseudoscience (there seems to be a couple from a quick Google Scholar search), and likely another RfC there may well be enough sources to actually change the lead and body content. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Enough to state it in WikiVoice in the definition? If that's the case, then by all means add it to the article body along with citations. Meanwhile, I started to think of some alternative wording, if there's appetite for a change. How about any of these:

• Controversy erupted in 2018 following the publication of...
• In 2018, controversy erupted with the publication of research introducing the concept of rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD)...
• The publication of controversial research in 2018 proposing rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD) as a (subtype of yadda...) sparked strong opposition as well as strong support from...

Are any of these better than the current one, or can we find something better? Mathglot (talk) 05:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Post-ec edit: didn't see the 04:56 response when I added this; sorry for the repetition. Other than pseudoscientific which I have no issue with if properly supported, my main thrust was about the reordering of the sentence. Mathglot (talk) 05:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

If we're at the stage where the sourcing and consensus (S&C) supports a change to explicitly calling ROGD pseudoscience, then a re-ordering of the first sentence seems a natural result of that change. If that is the case, stating it plainly upfront seems ideal with respect to our FRINGE guideline. That's not to say that LesbianTiamat's phrasing is ideal, nor the way they went about changing it.

Alternatively, it may also be true that the sourcing isn't strong enough for us to describe it as pseudoscience in the opening sentence yet, but it is strong enough for us to add substantial content relating to this in the body. And once that's done, we could look at adding a sentence or two elsewhere in the lead summarising that.

Regardless of which option is ultimately correct, a closer analysis of the sourcing seems warranted in relation to this. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Accent on the 'closer', and also 'careful'. We also need to keep WP:DUE in mind the whole time, and my hunch (based on my past readings; the situation may be different now) is that whatever support there is won't be universal, and I rather suspect that use of that term is itself controversial, implying a need for in-text attribution in the body, and careful evaluation to see what, if anything, to say about it in the lead, and if so, how to summarize it. Let's see where it goes. Mathglot (talk) 05:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

SPLC are not a reliable source for labelling anything pseudoscience, not are they MEDRS. They are a partisan source, with a narrow remit (which scientific consensus isn't part of) whose opinion is supposed to be attributed. Void if removed (talk) 08:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, the problem with sources on whether it is or is not pseudoscience, is how to weight, eg. gender studies papers that explicitly call it "pseudoscience" vs published statements from the French Academy of Medicine that cite Littman and take her findings seriously? Or the Steensma and de Vries November 2022 paper which also cites her, and ultimately says we still don't know and need more study?

More studies using both self and parent report measures would be needed to gain better insight in the existence of the ‘ROGD’ subtype.

Hyperbole from opinionated sources do not establish "pseudoscience" when it is taken seriously like this in the actually relevant literature. Unless someone wants to argue Steensma and de Vries are WP:FRINGE, I don't see how you can ignore that one. Void if removed (talk) 12:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@Mathglot Why don't you quit beating around the bush and tackle the real issue, whether or not it actually is pseudoscience? You're talking about process here when it's facts that matter. This is a repository of information, not a court.

ROGD uses scientific terminology and poses as science, while not being based on accepted scientific research. That is what pseudoscience is. Therefore, ROGD is pseudoscience.

Yes, it's controversial, but it's correct, and therefore it is what should be on Wikipedia.

The sourcing is more than strong enough. I am reverting your reversion. LesbianTiamat (talk) 06:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:Verifiability policy, Wikipedia depends on sourcing by citations to reliable, secondary sources. Your sources are primary opinion sources, and do not meet this standard. Statements about pseudoscience in biomedical topics require a much strong authority than mere opinion, and SPLC is particularly weak in this regard. You said,

ROGD uses scientific terminology and poses as science, while not being based on accepted scientific research. That is what pseudoscience is. Therefore, ROGD is pseudoscience.

But the problem is, that is you asserting that syllogism, not a source. If you want to include that in the article, we need to hear it from a high-quality, reliable, secondary source, and also verify that it represents the majority view. We can't include it in the article merely on your say-so; the WP:BURDEN is on you to substantiate your addition. Finally, it is poor form to make a change that you know is controversial and has been disputed when there is an ongoing discussion about it at the Talk page. If the discussion plays out and supports your view, no one will object to your adding it to the article, but we are not there yet. You are jumping the gun; please be patient, and self-revert to status quo ante while the discussion is ongoing. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 08:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

No. WP:BLUDGEON

If you investigate, you will find that all of the requirements have been more than met. LesbianTiamat (talk) 08:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

While I find it laughable that branding ROGD psuedoscience is an explosive assertion, Mathglot is right that we currently don't have enough RSes for that to be inserted into the lede. ROGD is an unproven assertion not backed by any reliable studies, but we don't yet have enough sourcing for calling it pseudoscience directly.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HandThatFeeds (talk • contribs) 09:07, January 29, 2024 (UTC)

I don't have a lot to add right now, but I have in the past reverted LesbianTiamat for adding "pseudoscience" in the lede (link). LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 14:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC) (removed accidentally, readded LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 05:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC))

The first sentence should at the very least make it clear that there is no scientific or evidence based support for this thing. The term proposed makes it sound like there might be. Would anyone object to to changing 'proposed' to 'scientifically unsupported' in the first sentence?—blindlynx 20:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

The best consensus in the actual literature is not that there is no evidence, but that it is an open question. Repeating this citation from older talk on this page (emphasis added):

We originally set out to study the phenomenon of adolescent- or rapid-onset GD (AOGD) and found an absence of literature, leading to our broader search strategy. There continues debate as to whether AOGD is a genuine phenomenon: Bauer et al. (2022) [61] provided data to suggest it is not, but faced strong rebuttal from both Littman (2022) [62] and Sinai (2022) [63] in terms of the way that AOGD has been defined and clinician experience. It is clear that we simply do not know enough about the observed phenomenon referred to as AOGD, nor do we fully understand the huge increase in numbers of adolescents (and especially NF) presenting for GD intervention in recent years, nor the comorbidities and long-term outcomes.

This is a systematic review of the literature that is less than 6 months old, and categorically is not saying there is no evidence, but rather takes the phenomenon seriously and says that it is uncertain, as is the observed phenomena it purports to describe, and that more study is needed. Void if removed (talk) 21:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

"More study is needed" is just boilerplate for these situations. The original assertion is based on a flawed paper that didn't follow proper scientific principles, and no one else has been able to match those results. ROGD is dead in the water, we just need to find a consensus way of phrasing it clearly to our readers. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

A potential future paper isn't a good source. There are no scientific papers saying that this exists, the original one was retracted. We need to make this clear to readers—blindlynx 23:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

the original one was retracted no, it was revised post-publication. That's different. Void if removed (talk) 14:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry my mistake, either way it isn't enough when there are methodological issues—blindlynx 16:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

the correction goes to great lengths to suggest the study proves nothing. it is only a hypothesis fishing expedition based on methodologically unsound work.. its original characterization as a proper controlled experiment is invalid.

The correction also adds 5 paragraphs of limitations to the discussion.

I know im rather late to discussion, but it is fun to rant about this study. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 16:18, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

That seems appropriate to me. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I also think that's a good change. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Further Reading

@Snokalok with this edit you reverted the addition of additional reading with the following comment:

The Manhattan Institute is not a reliable source to recommend on trans issues

The deleted source is "Archives of Sexual Behavior", and a specific response to the other listed item in "further reading", co-authored by Lisa Littman.

Please reinstate.

Void if removed (talk) 16:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

If that is referring to Manhattan Institute for Policy Research then... yeah, they're probably a bad source to be adding to our article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:24, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Just to clear, the source  in question is a Letter to the Editor published in Archives of Sexual Behavior. The primary author is affiliated with the Manhattan Institute. RS doesn't really play into the Further reading section. Are there other reasons to exclude it? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:33, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I'd say it shouldn't be included per WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE, and WP:NOTEVERYTHING.

Littman and Biggs are members of the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine. I think this whole article is a testament to Littman being thoroughly FRINGE, Biggs is also behind wonderful things like this, and Sapir is a longtime collaborator of SEGM who pushes anti-LGBT pseudoscience[9]. Also, the Archives of Sexual Behavior has a track record of publishing pseudoscience and is edited by pseuodoscience-pushers. [10][11].

There is no benefit to including it, and plenty of reasons not to. Best, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed with YFNS, there's plenty of reasons to exclude this. Loki (talk) 02:33, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Just because SPLC call things "pseudoscience" some 300 times in that report, doesn't actually make them definitively "pseudoscience", any more than The Heritage Foundation calling the sexual revolution and the work of Kinsey "pseudoscience" makes it true. These are WP:PARTISAN sources using hyperbolic language, not a scientific assessment. SPLC are viable for WP:RSOPINION, so you could quote them describing something as "pseudoscience" if it was WP:DUE but you can't use that as a basis for excluding a source in the first place because this is not the consensus of a broad range of neutral, reliable sources. Void if removed (talk) 22:11, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I'd say that if it is a partisan source calling other partisan sources partisan, then it has no real point in being in the external links. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 16:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

You'd treat policy documents and publications by Manhattan Institute with skepticism, but that's not what this is - this is a letter published by "Archives of Sexual Behaviour". From reading the letter, they fund one of the three authors and paid for it to be open access. Two of the three authors are unaffiliated with Manhattan, and on top of that one is the principal named subject of this article, ie Lisa Littman.

The further point is that this is not a source that is being used to make any specific factual claim - rather, it is listed in "further reading", and since it is a specific response to the only other entry in "further reading" - co-authored by the person who coined ROGD in the first place - it would seem relevant.

Now if someone can come up with a better WP:POLICY reason for removing it, fine, but I don't think the stated one is sound. Void if removed (talk) 16:39, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I guess this one counts as a WP:ELMAYBE (?) but I am inclined to leave it off. External links in articles like this should probably contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject per WP:ELYES. For further information, see WP:EXTERNAL. But if Fire isn't convinced, then it will be fine. Zenomonoz (talk) 01:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

According to splcenter.org, as of 12 December 2023, Archives of Sexual Behavior is "one of the top sexology journals in the world." Has it been deemed fringe, for purposes of Wikipedia, though? If not, the letter in question lists methodological flaws it claims to find in a study that is mentioned in the "Further reading" section of this article. If the study is relevant to this article then why wouldn’t the technical criticism also be relevant? Is any technical criticism of a study that claims to find evidence against ROGD by definition WP:FRINGE? Swood100 (talk) 01:59, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Swood100, were you replying to Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist here? Zenomonoz (talk) 02:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, as well as to the others who think this should be excluded. I don't think that the rationale for that has been clearly stated. Swood100 (talk) 02:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I am not confident this paper is really suitable as a WP:EXTERNAL link. On a topic like this, a suitable external link would be: Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons. Is that the case here?

I think this is a 'further research' paper. I guess it could be included there. But, personally, I think all of the 'further research' studies that are not yet covered in secondary sources should be removed. Previously, I argued all of the further research studies should be removed, but that is not longer the case – as some have been covered in secondary sources (news outlets). Zenomonoz (talk) 02:44, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying that the Turban paper belongs in 'Further reading' but the criticism of its methodology does not? Swood100 (talk) 05:41, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Swood100, – no? I am saying both could belong under 'FURTHER RESEARCH', which is a section of the page (different from further reading, please look carefully). Or both could be excluded if they lack secondary source coverage, but I think Turban's one has been covered in secondary sources. Zenomonoz (talk) 03:43, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

The letter in question seems to be a secondary source on Turban. Swood100 (talk) 05:07, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

In the SPLC report you linked, Group Dynamics and Division of Labor Within the Anti-LGBTQ+ Pseudoscience Network, they contextualize the ASB as being headed by Zucker (a prominent conversion therapist) with Bailey and Levine as editorial board members, who are members of the network, along with Littman, sometimes being in the same organizations. It notes the ASB published a now retracted methodologically flawed article on ROGD by Bailey. In fact, every author of the letter to the editor we're discussing are named as members of the network in the report. WP:MEDINDY and WP:FRINGE apply. Not all criticism of FRINGE-criticism is FRINGE, but it is when it's by the proponents of the FRINGE theory in the first place. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Swood100,it isn't that the journal is fringe, rather, in the gronw-up world of scientific research publications have to stand on their own two legs. Plenty of utter crap gets published in New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA, Lancet, BMJ, etc. all the time. It isn't the journal that is under scruitiny, it is what the authors said in it--the place it was published should not even be remotely even part of the consideration--it is totally up to the authors of a paper (and this is not a paper, it is a letter, which the threshold is incredibly low to get published) to substantiate their claims. Whether or not you believe what they say should be the same whether someone publishes it in a top journal, presents it at a meeting, or just tells you what they found. That assumes you are capable of thinking critically. Appeal to Authority is one of those things you do when you don't have evidence to back up your assertions. While we do defer to people who are experts, with the assumptions that have a better intuitive grasp of a topic, when there are not facts and some sort of decision is needed, when there is actual evidence I don't care who you are, where you are from, or what journal you publish in, if your work is crap or your data doesn't support your conclusions you had better be expected to be called out for it. As far as it is worth discussion? Sure, this letter is provocative, and cetainly rubs some people the wrong way, and until there are some meaningful studies done you can postulate whatever you want, and you can call whatever someone else populates nonsense and suggest an alternative, and peole are free to get their dogmatic panties up in a bunch on all sides of an issue. Until there is evidence it is conjecture, regardless on whether or agree, or disagree, with the authors. If some hypothesis makes you feel uncomfortable, then there are scientifically supported approaches to dealin with your discomfort while the facts get sorted out. The solution to anxiety over hypotheticals is patience, relaxation exercises, and therapy while waiting on the science to emerge with a less dogmatic, less politic, answer. My hunch, is that it isn't going to make everyone happy, in fact, I am going to bet, given what I know about the topic and human psychosexual development, that the 'answer' isn't going make anyone happy since it is almost surely the case to be a more complex mechanism than peer pressure, passing fads, genetics, in utero factors, cultlure, or whatever someone wants to attribute human behavior this complex to. Time will sort it out, and this one letter really deserves a footnote on a future discussion page. Of course, dogma always will be at odds with science, as reality is nealry almost always more interesting than the imagination of rigid thinkers (and there are plenty of those on all sides of this issue). — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrKC MD (talk • contribs) 02:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Why would a letter to the editor ever be included as a due weight source, especially as an EL or Further reading no context link? It's not a published study, what reason does it have to be included? Seems like a clear violation of MEDRS. Silverseren^C 05:57, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS seems a better standard than the original rationale given, but I have to wonder how the other reference in there qualifies though - it is a primary source and not a review article. I'd argue for removing both. If the Turban paper is notable for further reading as a critical response to Littman's hypothesis, despite not being WP:MEDRS, then that applies to Littman's critical response to Turban too surely? Void if removed (talk) 11:05, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

MEDRS isn't just a yes/no. See WP:MEDASSESS, with secondary analysis of data generally being more reliable than editorials (of which a letter to the editor is a weak type). If we're concerned about the reliability of letters to the editor, though, we should be scrutinizing the ones actually used as sources in the article, rather than the vastly less important further reading links. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:22, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi FFF, I just reviewed the sources in the article and 2 places stuck out like a sore thumb:

• In a letter to the editor, Littman responded that her methodologies were consistent with those that had been used, without controversy, in widely cited studies supporting gender identity affirmation health care.[28] - WP:UNDUE and WP:MANDY applies
• Some clinicians state that an increasing prevalence of trans youth first presenting in early adolescence, as described in Littman's research, is consistent with their patient population, though they are uncertain as to causes or implications for clinical treatment.[50][51][52]- A letter to the editor, a primary study saying ROGD might be a thing, but needs further research and could have other explanations, and a "Special Section" in the ASB written by Zucker.

I propose we remove these snippets from the article unless independent RS cover them. Best regards, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:39, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Strongly agree! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:25, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi FFF, just want to note that per my 0RR restriction I can't remove text myself so I'd appreciate you (or another watcher) removing those snippets lol. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:43, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Sure, but if so, the Turban study is only the next level up the pyramid. A systematic review of the evidence concluded that we don't know, and need more evidence.

Point is that neither are being used to support a factual claim, and are just there for further reading, so I don't see why signposting the weak Turban study is substantially different to signposting the weaker letter in response. Void if removed (talk) 21:59, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

That source has an interesting quote:

We originally set out to study the phenomenon of adolescent- or rapid-onset GD (AOGD) and found an absence of literature, leading to our broader search strategy. There continues debate as to whether AOGD is a genuine phenomenon: Bauer et al. (2022) [61] provided data to suggest it is not, but faced strong rebuttal from both Littman (2022) [62] and Sinai (2022) [63] in terms of the way that AOGD has been defined and clinician experience. It is clear that we simply do not know enough about the observed phenomenon referred to as AOGD, nor do we fully understand the huge increase in numbers of adolescents (and especially NF) presenting for GD intervention in recent years, nor the comorbidities and long-term outcomes.

This seems to be relevant to this article. Has adding it been discussed? Swood100 (talk) 00:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe so and it is an interesting paragraph, I agree. This is a high quality MEDRS source that - after a review of the literature - does not come down one way or another on ROGD or criticism of it, and says more evidence is needed. I think this should be reflected in the article. Void if removed (talk) 21:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• See my comments below. It's completely inappropriate to try and link a peer-reviewed paper to a letter to the editor in terms of WP:WEIGHT. --Aquillion (talk) 19:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

  No, in the scientific literature, it is fair game.

  It totally depends on the content.

  Very important findings get reported as letters, important theories and observations likewise can come out as letters. There is an tremendous body of literature that shows that even peer-review, controlled trials can be as biased and misleading as the most creative K-street propaganda / pharma marketing scheme.

  You have to address the lack of methodology totally separate from the publication vehicle. DrKC MD (talk) 02:46, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

• It should clearly be excluded. It fails WP:ELYES: It's not the official site for the topic or a copy of the work in question (which may be what's confusing people, since that's usually how such non-neutral ELs get included.) And it is obviously not neutral material, a requirement for point three, being a piece of opinion published by someone with massive amounts of stake in the subject. ELs aren't a place to post dump every place people related to the article have expressed their personal opinions as to why they're right. I'm also extremely skeptical of the framing with which it was included (as a "response") - we're not required to include every possible academic response; that would be WP:FALSEBALANCE. What matters is the relative weight given to each source in high-quality sourcing. A letter to the editor is obviously not equal in weight to a peer-reviewed paper and should never be weighed equally in an article by putting it on equal footing in terms of placement, focus, amount of coverage, etc. The fact that this was included via a think tank like the Manhattan Institute is telling because it shows that, beyond not going through peer-review, it has only really received attention from people who are literally "hired guns" whose job is to promote the perspective it advocates, which clearly indicates that it's WP:UNDUE to be weighted equally to the Turban paper. --Aquillion (talk) 19:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Why would a letter to the editor ever be included as a due weight source… It's not a published study, what reason does it have to be included?

This seems a bit excessive. Serious methodological critiques and comments are at least as valid as the studies they critique, more so to the extent they disclose flaws that impact the validity of the study. Here are two that are currently included in this article:

• Methodological Critique of Littman’s (2018) Parental-Respondents Accounts of “Rapid-Onset Gender Dysphoria”
• Formal comment on: Parent reports of adolescents and young adults perceived to show signs of a rapid onset of gender dysphoria

The due weight evaluation is performed by the journal publishing the letter. If a study is relevant to this article then a critique of it serious enough to be published in a top journal cannot be irrelevant.

And it is obviously not neutral material, a requirement for point three, being a piece of opinion published by someone with massive amounts of stake in the subject. ...The fact that this was included via a think tank like the Manhattan Institute is telling because it shows that, beyond not going through peer-review, it has only really received attention from people who are literally "hired guns" whose job is to promote the perspective it advocates, which clearly indicates that it's WP:UNDUE to be weighted equally to the Turban paper.

Not all criticism of FRINGE-criticism is FRINGE, but it is when it's by the proponents of the FRINGE theory in the first place.

These are the classical ad hominem argument: attacking the characteristics or authority of the writer instead of addressing the substance of what is written. Surely it can't be true that a given technical critique will be fringe if written by author A but not if written by author B. What is it about the letter that shows an absence of neutrality?

I'm also extremely skeptical of the framing with which it was included (as a "response") - we're not required to include every possible academic response; that would be WP:FALSEBALANCE.

This is the purpose of reliable sources. We count on them to weed out the minority views, fringe theories, and extraordinary claims that are the gist of WP:FALSEBALANCE. This journal determined that this critique deserved some of its limited space. What better evidence could there be for relevance? Swood100 (talk) 23:51, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Inappropriate infobox

Flounder fillet, regarding the {{Infobox alternative diagnosis}} which you added, alternative medicine describes things like "New Age medicine, pseudo-medicine, unorthodox medicine, holistic medicine, fringe medicine, and unconventional medicine, with little distinction from quackery", and does not describe scientific theories that are proved incorrect, for example. This infobox is inappropriate; please remove it. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Since the article isn't about alternative medicine, I just went ahead and reverted that change. Hist9600 (talk) 03:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2024

change ", who had not previously studied transgender health care or gender dysphoria" to " "

This statement is a judgement of valor and is not based on any evidence. Nolieonlytruth (talk) 19:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: this is supported by the cited source. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

"Littman began her research after noticing that in her small town in Rhode Island, a few teens in the same friend group started identifying as trans. She had not previously studied gender dysphoria or trans health care, but she thought it was peculiar and merited some exploration. She did not approach the work with “a chip on my shoulder,” she says." As the source said so is not sourced. Writing on a blog doesn't create truth out of thin air. So this is a judgement of valor / gossip and have no place here. Nolieonlytruth (talk) 19:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Which blog are you walking about? The source is an article in the MIT Technology Review—blindlynx 20:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't matter how we perceive the source, the say is not sourced. Nolieonlytruth (talk) 12:47, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

You seem to not understand what sourcing means on Wikipedia. Stubbornly insisting this is not sourced will get you nowhere. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

What do mean? It's a reliable source for the claim—blindlynx 13:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the website is trustable, and the article is well written and sources almost everythin. I am pointing out that the part that claims "who had not previously studied transgender health care or gender dysphoria" is not sourced and it the only black on white text on the whole internet that is saying that and nothing can validate this "opinion". Nolieonlytruth (talk) 15:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Our RS do not need to cite their sources, that is a common misconception. RS means, when they say something, we can assume it's true barring other RS saying otherwise. But since you refuse to let this go on policy grounds, here is an interview Littman gave in which she was asked about her professional background prior to researching dysphoria, which she describes (and is completely unrelated to GD), and when asked why she chose to research dysphoria, she says started with noticing kids coming out and deciding to investigate what she'd term "ROGD". IE, in her own words, she had not researched gender dysphoria previously, and only started to do so for the purposes of this study. P.S. This is not a RS and the MIT alone is enough for the statement, I am only bringing this up to point out not even Littman disputes this... Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)