Talk:Libs of TikTok

Content

Recent events, specifically on February 7th, have brought attention to bomb threats. However, there have been additional incidents, primarily targeting Planet Fitness—linked to Libs of TikTok—across 38 locations. These threats are related to the gym chain’s locker-room policies for transgender individuals, and now the FBI is actively involved.--Rock & roll is not dead (talk) 02:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Vague

The statement about individuals linking her to a person seen to be involved with the Jan 6 attack is vague and awkwardly placed. Although it wouldn't surprise anyone concerned if it were true, it's just speculation. Mind that I am NOT point to this in an effort to defend someone like CR or LOTT. Fuck noooo. 2A00:23C4:3E44:2C01:F922:E57E:7E65:5835 (talk) 16:33, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Grammatical error in paragraph 2

"...several of which having received bomb threats after being featured on a post."

Should be "have received bomb threats."

I can't change it myself as the article is understandably locked for editing. Darth Watto (talk) 16:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you; this was a bit clumsy. Instead of changing the verb, however, I removed "having" altogether. I think that works, but do let me know if you disagree. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Sources #17 and #18 are misleading: They do not provide truthful examples of this account spreading 'false claims'.

This obviously is never going anywhere; user’s only other edits are WP:IDHT-type activity at another culture war page and the complaint here is baseless Dronebogus (talk) 13:06, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Sources #17 and #18 report that libsoftiktok made a false claim about the Center for Gender Surgery at Boston Children's Hospital. The tweet in question is: “Boston Children’s Hospital is now offering ‘gender-affirming hysterectomies’ for young girls.” Whether or not this is a false claim can easily be verified via the Wayback Machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20220818232821/https://www.childrenshospital.org/programs/center-gender-surgery-program "The Center for Gender Surgery at Boston Children's Hospital offers gender affirmation surgery services to eligible adolescents and young adults" So what exactly about the original tweet is false or 'misinformation'? Source #17 even acknowledges this within the article, stating: "The separate Center for Gender Surgery strictly provides treatments to “eligible adolescents and young adults“." It doesn't even disprove the claim made in the tweet, in-fact it makes the same claim within the article. If anything, source #17 is more misleading than the tweet in question. The article doesn't address how the claim is 'false' but makes the claim that it is false. The claim itself is not false, it is a verifiable fact. Source #18 is an article regarding the same tweet. It makes a similar unsubstantiated claim that it is 'misinformation'. CodingApe (talk) 05:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC) Source #16 also states that the tweet is false: "Raichik falsely claimed on Aug. 11 that Boston Children’s Hospital performs hysterectomies on children" Unless I am missing something, this appears to be the only example of libsoftiktok spreading misinformation provided in the article. Given that tweet is not misinformation, and considering this source was used to back-up the claim on Wikipedia that this account 'spread false claims', I believe it should likely be removed as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CodingApe (talk • contribs) 05:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC) WP:OR does not trump reliable sources, but in any case let’s look at your argument in detail: YMMV on what “young girls” refers to but “eligible adolescents” could mean people in their late teens, old enough to drive and sexually consent in many jurisdictions. The fact that it’s a children’s hospital, differentiating “adolescents and young adults”, makes the claim that they’re offering gender-affirmation surgery to young children dubious. So not only does your claim not cite a valid source, it also simply makes no logical sense. Dronebogus (talk) 10:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC) The World Health Organization definition officially designates an adolescent as someone between the ages of 10 and 19. Is a 13 year old female not a 'young girl'? Regardless, the 'eligible adolescents' verbiage isn't the only verbiage they used to indicate they were offering these surgeries to minors. Here are other excerpts: "As the first pediatric center in the country dedicated to the surgical care of transgender patients" "Our skilled team includes specialists in plastic surgery, urology, endocrinology, nursing, gender management, and social work, who collaborate to provide a full suite of surgical options for transgender teens and young adults." "We follow the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) guidelines to surgically treat people who are stable in their gender identity and have documentation of persistent gender dysphoria." Let's look at what the WPATH guidelines are, specifically regarding surgical care for adolescents: https://www.wpath.org/media/cms/Documents/SOC%20v8/SOC8%20Chapters%20for%20Public%20Comment/SOC8%20Chapter%20Draft%20for%20Public%20Comment%20-%20Adolescent.pdf "17 and above for metoidioplasty, orchidectomy, vaginoplasty, and hysterectomy and fronto-orbital remodeling as part of gender affirming treatment unless there are significant, compelling reasons to take an individualized approach, considering the factors unique to the adolescent treatment frame." This directly aligns with the verbiage they used, 'eligible adolescents'. If libsoftiktok merely tweeted the information that the Children's Hospital had available on their website, were they intentionally spreading misinformation? Were they spreading misinformation at all? The answer to both of those questions is obviously no. CodingApe (talk) 16:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Sources #16, #17 and #18 are misleading

Following up on this as I came across an active PDF that utilizes the same 'eligible adolescents' verbiage: https://www.childrenshospital.org/sites/default/files/media_migration/f9a94dd5-cba9-4a58-b355-b012cb6e4e13.pdf

User Dronebogus is clearly misusing the hat template in their closure of my previous thread by attempting to win the argument and simultaneously attack my character. Not only that, but they also make several false claims.

Dronebogus states that "WP:OR does not trump reliable sources"; however, I am not asking for any information to be included in this article. I am asking for misleading sources and information to be excluded. Wikipedia encourages editors to review sources in WP:RS: "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis"

They also altered libsoftiktok's tweet in their original response to me: "makes the claim that they’re offering gender-affirmation surgery to young children dubious." libsoftiktok never made the claim that they're offering these services to children. They stated "young girls", which means adolescents or younger.

Dronebogus, if my claims are 'baseless', why haven't you examined them? All you've responded to me with is your own personal opinion on what a 'young girl' is. Whether or not these girls can "drive and sexually consent" is completely irrelevant, it has nothing to do with whether or not the tweet libsoftiktok made was misinformation. CodingApe (talk) 06:35, 2 August 2024 (UTC)