Talk:Irreversible Damage

Jack Turban credentials

@Banglange: I was wondering why you keep reverting changes to Jack Turban's credentials? He is presently a chief fellow, at the time of the review he produced for Psychology Today he was a fellow. I'm not sure what your objection is here. Perhaps you could elaborate? Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:57, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what to say beyond what I put in each diff comment. He keeps getting called a psychiatrist when he is still a trainee in psychiatry. That he is chief trainee, that he is one versus another rank of trainee, etc. don't change that.Banglange (talk) 20:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I believe you are mistaken. In a US context, a fellow is not a trainee. It is a follow on qualification after residency, but it is not mandatory. At this point he is as far as I'm aware allowed to call himself a psychiatrist. See Psychiatrist#US and Canada, according to his Linkedin profile, Jack did his residency in paediatrics and psychiatry between May 2017 and July 2020 in Boston. At the time of writing the review, December 2020, he had earned the right to call himself a psychiatrist and had enrolled as a fellow at Stanford as a follow-on qualification. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:15, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Turban's review of Shrier is dated June, 2020. He says in his own bio, however, that he did not become a fellow until after that: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jack-turban-12218130. When he wrote/posted/published his review of Shrier, he was still a resident, neither a fellow nor a (full) psychiatrist.Banglange (talk) 23:56, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure where that date has come from, as the source on its website very clearly says "Posted December 6 2020". I've checked The Wayback Machine, which is excluded from the site, and archive.today for which the earliest snapshot is dated December 7th. I'm not sure where a publication date of June 12 2020 came from, as that would be before the publication of the book on 30 June 2020, and mentions events like Target removing it from sale which didn't happen until November 2020. Even the URL for it is dated December 2020. I've corrected the source in the article now however to match what it says. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:25, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I just checked for when the source was first added to the article. It seems it was added in this diff, dated 8 December 2020. And I can see exactly where this confusion has come from. At some point after adding the article, someone changed the date format. At the time of the initial add, the article date was 2020-06-12. In YYYY-MM-DD format that is 12 July 2020, but in YYYY-DD-MM format it is 12 December 2020. In this diff on 13 December an editor corrected the date into a less ambiguous format, but appears to have read it in the wrong format and assumed the review was written on 12 June 2020. I've corrected it now in the article, but this is definitely a lesson in always checking what the sources say first! Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:47, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Seeing as that particular diff edited the dates on multiple sources, some of which may still be in use on the article I'll be doing a quick source check now to make sure all the publication dates match up. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:49, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Wow, Sideswipe9th: I really do have to say what a good piece of sleuthing that was! The remaining issue, however, is that Turban does not appear to have written the review at all: The blog says the review was by "Devon Frye" and merely posted by Turban on his PT blog: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/political-minds/202012/new-book-irreversible-damage-is-full-misinformation. None of this seems to quality as an RS at all. Banglange (talk) 02:25, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Cheers! There were a couple of other references that had been previously added in an ambiguous format, or had the wrong date entirely which I've now corrected on the article.

With respect to Devon Frye, I believe you're mistaking the reviewer of the review for the author of the review. If you check the source, Jack Turban is the author of the book review, and Devon is the reviewer of Jack's book review. If you click on Devon's name you get redirected to an information page on Psychology Today's editorial process, which includes an "editorial review for all expert author content." All content written by expert authors on that website are subject to review, even if the content is itself a book review! Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Ah! Now I get it. Thanks, again. Banglange (talk) 02:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

After all the contentiousness I got in the middle of in other threads, I have to compliment everybody in this one for centering things on facts, and getting to the bottom of various misunderstandings about terminology, date formats, and authorship of reviews and reviews of reviews. It's a nice break from the culture wars. *Dan T.* (talk) 16:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Cheers @Dtobias:. It was a strange one which took a lot of diffs to find when it first got added and when it got mistakenly corrected. It'd certainly be nice if the world as a whole could stop using ambiguous dates! But it was a worthwhile exercise in making sure all the current citations are dated correctly. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:18, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Endorses?

collapsed for ease of navigation Crossroads -talk- 04:58, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Search query Google: "book endorses" site:wikipedia.org — 17 results returned The primary results are explored below. All the other Google results (for me) are talk pages, with just two exceptions: one page featuring a person with the surname 'Book', and another in the Armenian language. 1st result: this very article This article comes up for me as the top result (long ago I configured my Google account to exclude personalized search, but I don't know whether they still do anything with that setting years later). The book endorses the contentious concept of rapid onset gender dysphoria, which is not recognized as a medical diagnosis by any major professional institution. You know how that reads to the brainstem? It reads as "the book endorses contention". Yuck. Yuck. And yuck. Plus the flaming red letters: "not recognized by any major" already at the end of the second sentence. This page should very nearly be considered a BLP page for Abigail Shrier, as this page is the target page for her name. Completely inappropriate placement and framing for a BLP page, if you ask me. 2nd result Daemonologie (1597) Last paragraph of second paragraph of first non-lead section. The book endorses the practice of witch hunting in a Christian society. James begins the book: The fearefull aboundinge at this time in this countrie, of these detestable slaves of the Devil, the Witches or enchanters, hath moved me (beloved reader) to dispatch in post, this following treatise of mine (...) to resolve the doubting (...) both that such assaults of Satan are most certainly practised, and that the instrument thereof merits most severely to be punished. Well, that leaves little to the imagination. 4th result Irreducible Mind (2007) Deep into second major subsection The book endorses phenomena related to psychosomatic medicine, placebo effects, near-death experiences, mystical experiences, and creative genius, to argue for a "strongly dualistic theory of mind and brain". Then two sentences later, a buttress: The book "challenges neuroscientific reductionism" as it argues that properties of minds cannot be fully explained by those of brains. That's not even controversial as a claim, as it pretty much encompasses only scientific atheists and deists of granite. It's right up the alley of John Searle's Chinese room. 5th result The Bell Curve (1994) — fancy meeting you here Way down in the basement Eric Siegel wrote on the Scientific American blog that the book "endorses prejudice by virtue of what it does not say. Nowhere does the book address why it investigates racial differences in IQ. By never spelling out a reason for reporting on these differences in the first place, the authors transmit an unspoken yet unequivocal conclusion: Race is a helpful indicator as to whether a person is likely to hold certain capabilities. Even if we assume the presented data trends are sound, the book leaves the reader on his or her own to deduce how to best put these insights to use. The net effect is to tacitly condone the prejudgment of individuals based on race." Isn't that a grand exercise in moving the goalposts? In "evidence based" scientific discourse, one advances the evidence in hand. Positing alternative explanations is worthwhile secondary narrative—if you've actually got something useful to add that clarifies the larger discussion. This is not a normal standard in evidence-based discourse. Anyone who knows the context of that book knows that saintly, clarifying remarks was not going to be its wheelhouse, and that there was already a large, extant literature devoted to exactly that. Of course, there are many people in the postmodernist camp who believe that goalposts should be moved in precisely this way; and not very many of the old guard who agree with them. In part, this is a generational divide. Bear in mind, they call old people "wise" and young people "callow" for a good reason. In China's Cultural Revolution, youth was very much on the wrong side of history. But this is entirely fine as content in that article page. It's very clearly attributed to one person, whose perceptual frame is easy to identify. With a moment's thought, the reader can see that he's clearly addressing the is/ought chasm of activist application (though this is implicit) and reason out that I guess we're to assume—because assuming the worst is easy—that most readers only bother to learn the "is" lay of the land in order to rush into hot "ought" judgement. Traditional science recognizes itself as descriptive, first of all. The laws of motion are fundamentally descriptive, and to interpret Newton's equations as "explanatory" is to do an injustice which harkens back to teleology. This is fine, and we don't need to add that "Eric Siegel endorses teleology because of what he does not say." I mean, shouldn't he have drawn direct attention to how he's playing the is/ought card against a long established, pernicious backdrop of explanatory teleology? 6th result Arnold DeVries Bottom of biography section DeVries was the co-author of Ben Klassen's 1982 book Salubrious Living. ... For example, DeVries admired Pacific Islanders for their physical beauty and criticized the dieting and lifestyles of western culture. The book endorses fasting, sunbathing, fruitarian and raw food dieting. DeVries eschewed medical treatment and believed that fasting could treat most illnesses. This one is completely uncontentious. Props for tipping fasting as a health practice back in 1982, long before the current fad. X "could treat most illness" is the universal calling card of snake oil, so now I have to rescind those props, after all. 7th result Kermit Zarley Bottom of second major subsection The publication of his most recent book, The Restitution of Jesus Christ, was preceded by his usage of the pseudonym Servetus the Evangelical. His stated reasons for doing so were: "if my fellow Evangelicals ever knew about my christological beliefs they would not accept me as a genuine Christian and ostracize me from the Evangelical community". His book endorses a Unitarian viewpoint of christology, similar to the quasi-Unitarian position of Michael Servetus himself. This appears completely uncontentious. Interesting that my net gatherer up yet another example of someone fearful of being voted off an island. 10th result Kenneth Hsu Way down in body text File:Ascending and Descending.jpg Hsu criticized Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection. According to Hsu "If most extinctions are caused by catastrophes ... then chance, not superiority, presides over who shall live and who shall die. Indeed, the whole course of evolution may be governed by chance, and not reflect at all the slow march from inferior to superior forms so beloved by Victorians, and so deeply embedded in Western thought." The book endorses catastrophism and non-Darwinian evolution. The book "endorses catastrophism"? Yikes. The supplied cite is paywalled. But whatever. The actual quote from the author is math salad. For example, would it really matter if you threw dice in the presidential primaries to extinguish many also-rans? You'd still get two opposed candidates of a largely predictable political valence, and the main contest would continue to be the election itself, and that's only one choice out of many (most), but enough to constitute the primary mass of how the cookie crumbles. That modern biological forms are more complex than earlier biological forms seems incontrovertible on the geologic evidence. What part of evolution guarantees this, if any part at all, remains highly speculative. Genetic inheritance is now a proven theory. That supports an understandable change process in biological populations (the direct meaning of the word "evolution"). People have apparently never heard of the three body problem of game theory. John von Neumann solved game theory for a two-person game. But the remark was that a three-person game "degenerates from strategy into combat" because the central strategy is for two parties to gang up on the third party. Also for any intransitive game, you can obtain circular behaviour for another reason. In a shifting, multiparty environment, the strong can continue to vanquish the weak over and over again, and you can go nowhere on a linear metric of final superiority. Slow though the process of selection may be, if feeble man can do much by his powers of artificial selection, I can see no limit to the amount of change, to the beauty and infinite complexity of the co-adaptations between all organic beings, one with another and with their physical conditions of life, which may be effected in the long course of time by nature's power of selection. — Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species The Victorian attitude was strongly informed by the large contribution made by selective breeding to the British Agricultural Revolution, which had a lot to do with why a much expanded population wasn't starving to death by the millions. Summary I was pretty sure I was going to get a narrow result set for that search, because I've visited ten of thousands of Wikipedia leads in my extensive travels, and I just don't see that kind of loaded language very often. It was a bit of a fun exercise, to be honest, and oh so very sweet that The Bell Curve made a special guest appearance in my very limited dragnet. Further quibbles The citation to Amazon refuses to advertise renowned anti-trans journalist's book suggesting trans teens are a 'contagion' is pretty much worthless. Shrier is known for writing obsessively about the debunked 2018 phrase "Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria", which posits that "social and peer contagion" is responsible for young people identifying as trans, as opposed to growing acceptance and understanding. The word "debunked" links to another page (there's no other support for the use of this charged word). No, there's no such thing as 'rapid onset gender dysphoria' — October 2019 Reiterating that the phrase comes from a single 2018 study and that there is no reliable evidence that it exists, the Australian Professional Association for Trans Health (AusPATH) said it does not recognise ROGD – and neither does any other major health organisation. That's not "debunking". That's a statement that the proposed diagnostic has not yet crossed the bar to accepted diagnostic. Every diagnostic category now recognized must have once begun as a tender shoot. And even when we had mountains of corpses (women's bodies), that often wasn't initially enough to get a fringe proposal taken seriously. Oh, these professional societies are lightning fast and never falter. "As with all cases involving significant corrections to the published record, we have not taken this decision lightly, and do appreciate that there are different viewpoints about the study. In our view, the corrected article now provides a better context of the work, as a report of parental observations, but not a clinically validated phenomenon or a diagnostic guideline." Bebunked? Are people smoking drugs here? It was never "bunked" in the first place, so far as I can see. Most virginal ideas don't entire the discourse in a "bunked" condition. Heavenly Creatures (1994) Based on the notorious 1954 Parker–Hulme murder case in Christchurch, New Zealand, the film focuses on the relationship between two teenage girls—Pauline Parker and Juliet Hulme—which culminates in the murder of Parker's mother. ... In 1952 Christchurch, New Zealand, the more affluent English 13-year-old girl Juliet Hulme (Winslet) befriends a 14-year-old girl from a working-class family, Pauline Parker (Lynskey), when Juliet transfers to Pauline's school. They bond over a shared history of severe childhood disease and isolating hospitalizations, and over time develop an intense friendship. Pauline admires Juliet's outspoken arrogance and beauty. Together they paint, write stories, make plasticine figurines, and eventually create a fantasy kingdom called Borovnia. It is the setting of the adventure novels they write together, which they hope to have published and eventually made into films in Hollywood. Over time it begins to be as real to them as the real world. Pauline's relationship with her mother Honora becomes increasingly hostile and the two fight constantly. This angry atmosphere is in contrast to the peaceful intellectual life Juliet shares with her family. Pauline spends most of her time at the Hulmes', where she feels accepted. Juliet introduces Pauline to the idea of "the Fourth World", a Heaven without Christians where music and art are celebrated. Juliet believes she will go there when she dies. Certain actors and musicians have the status of saints in this afterlife, such as singer Mario Lanza, with whom both girls are obsessed. During a day trip to Port Levy, Juliet's parents announce that they are going away and plan to leave Juliet behind. Her fear of being left alone makes her hysterical, culminating in her first direct experience of the Fourth World, perceiving it as a land where all is beautiful and she is safe. She asks Pauline to come with her, and the world that Juliet sees becomes visible to Pauline, too. This is presented as a shared spiritual vision, a confirmation of their "Fourth World" belief, that influences the girls' predominant reality and affects their perception of events in the everyday world. No, there's never been the least evidence that teenaged girls who bond against the world especially tightly can talk themselves into some seriously pathological outcomes. In a September 4 statement, APS said, "Empirical evidence consistently refutes claims that a child's or adolescent's gender can be 'directed' by peer group pressure or media influence, as a form of 'social contagion'." At the very bottom of the article, some indication of actual contrary evidence. So let's chase that one down. No, there's no 'social contagion' turning Australians transgender — 13 September 2019 "Empirical evidence consistently refutes claims that a child's or adolescent's gender can be 'directed' by peer group pressure or media influence, as a form of 'social contagion'," APS Fellow Professor Damien Riggs said. "To say that there is a trans-identity crisis among young Australians because of social media pressure is not only alarmist, scientifically incorrect and confusing, but is potentially harmful to a young person's mental health and wellbeing." "Claims that young people are transgender due to 'social contagion' serve to belittle young people." "[The claims ask] them to believe that their sense of self and their gender is nothing more than a by-product of what other people might think or say through the media." Oh, the usual talking points from that side. Claims do not "ask". That's a weird tap dance beloved by one partisan group, only. Nor is "the claim" (not here properly spelled out) saying that all children feel this way for this reason; it's trying to account for some of the surprising recent inflation confined to one narrow demographic only (young women). Okay, so that's the world according to Damien Riggs. Who is this guy? Psychotherapy I run a small private psychotherapy practice on Wednesdays between 10 am and 5 pm, though other appointments may be available by negotiation. I specialise in working with transgender children and adolescents aged 12 and under. This work has involved advocacy on the part of young people, counselling and supporting their transition, and connecting them in with other supports. I also specialise in providing support and counselling to parents of transgender children and adolescents. More details about my clinical approach are available in my new book. In his own blurb, he's a small partisan practitioner oriented toward advocacy with a book to sell. And he's finally the anchor tenant for using the charged word "bebunked" in our primary citation.

More than enough said. Unfortunately, I know better that to enter this debate through the established trench network, so I did something different, because—who knows?—it can hardly be worse. — MaxEnt 23:49, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

This post was far too long, containing many apparent irrelevancies about other articles which have nothing to do with this topic, and overly-detailed analysis and WP:FORUMing about one of the sources. The sentence in our article that prompted this comment has been the result of much discussion here, and well represents and balances the various sources on the topic (and not just the one you criticize here). Crossroads ^-talk- 04:58, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Crossroads. There's so much unnecessary content in this that it's hard to understand what point MaxEnt is trying to make. If it's just a concern over the terminology "endorses", then that has been discussed before. If there's another point that I've missed, could it be restated in a much briefer way? Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Source 50

Source [50] is a YouTube video. And I am not sure YouTube videos are ideal sources for Wikipedia.

What do you guys think?CycoMa (talk) 23:59, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I think Source 50 is valid for the phrasing it supports, per WP:RSPYT and WP:ABOUTSELF. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 00:41, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I weakly support removal of the whole sentence. I have no doubts about the reliability of sources 49 and 50, but both are primary. The Spectator source is just an excerpt from the book. I find it relevant that someone who was interviewed in the book apologized later, but absent any coverage of that in secondary sources, I am unsure if it's due for inclusion. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 00:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree that this is WP:UNDUE. If it's just an op-ed and a YouTube video, there is no reason to think this is noteworthy. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

(Yes. But think about it. If you let this door open, then the door stays open for other uses of YT videos. Think about all the endless arguments about using a YT video as a source this would floor the brakes on. Look at it this way: what becomes good for the goose will become good for the gander.) Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I actually did a Wikipedia essay on the "goose and gander" issue many years ago, complete with some neat Goose Sauce and Gander Sauce packets. (Incidentally, the thing that distinguishes a goose from a gander is, of course, biological sex, but it's a "transphobic dogwhistle" to say so!) *Dan T.* (talk) 13:49, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm weakly in favour of keeping the sentence, if we could find a secondary source to support it. I think one of the people interviewed for the book and mentioned in it by name, regretting their involvement is noteworthy, if we can find a non-primary source to back it up. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:07, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Pyxis Solitary, isn't this just the slippery slope fallacy? There are very clear guidelines for when a YT video is appropriate as a self-published source, which is why I linked to WP:RSPYT and WP:ABOUTSELF. Because of that, I don't think the issue you raise would become a problem. That said, unless a secondary source is found to establish that inclusion is due, I also support removal of the sentence in question. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 01:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I removed the Chase Ross segment. For posterity, here's the diff of my removal. I only spent about ten minutes searching, but I was unable to find RS referencing Ross and the book. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:26, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Schrier claims...

Schrier claims that a member (unnamed) of the National Association of Science Writers was expelled for just suggesting that her (Schreir's) book "sounded interesting." Schrier, Abigail, June/July 2021 "Gender Ideology Run Amok," Imprimis June/July 2021, 5096/70:1-7, p. 6. Kdammers (talk) 06:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I believe they were (allegedly) expelled from an online forum run by that organization rather than the organization itself. Is there another (more reliable) source for this story? *Dan T.* (talk) 00:35, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Note: I've placed this thread in a new section since it seems separate from the "Source 50" discussion above. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 00:50, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Undue Weight

Was this article written by Shrier's publicist? More work needs to be done to make it clear that "Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria" is not a thing and that Irreversible Damage represents a work of fringe science. The article on Bob Lazar isn't about whether there are aliens at Area 51 and the Moon Landing Hoax page is carefully worded to avoid presenting conspiracy theories as fact. Just because Shrier has politicized her work to get some big money marketing muscle behind her doesn't make a fringe theory based on junk science any more credible. wp:undue and wp:fringe apply. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 14:17, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Can you please be more specific about how you think the article should be changed? There has been considerable previous discussion about various aspects of the article, and it might be that certain changes have already been discussed. Either way, with a controversial article such as this one, it is usually preferable to make or propose small individual changes that can be assessed one at a time. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 04:43, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This article has been gradually built up and refined by many, many editors. We judge how to describe a topic by the WP:Reliable sources on it, not by preconceptions that it must be like some other topic. When it comes to how to describe ROGD, WPATH carries far more WP:WEIGHT than does a writer for Buzzfeed News. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:45, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Looking at your edit, I agree with your description of ROGD as "fringe". In fact I think I made the argument for the exact same wording last year. ROGD is not recognized by any peak body on transgender health or mental illness. It is plain WP:FALSEBALANCE to present it as even having the slightest credence of legitimacy. I don't as much agree with your other edits of the lead, not because I like it (I don't really), but I'm not sure of a better way of summarizing Shrier's position. However, I do think the "Reception" section suffers from placing undue weight on non-scientific sources with no appreciable credentials in the subject matter. I agree those sources should be included to some degree, but they should not be prioritized over the reviews from (for example) Jack Turban and Christopher Ferguson. Bravetheif (talk) 08:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I also agree that we should be calling ROGD "fringe" explicitly, both on this page and its own. If every major psychological association signing a statement that basically reads "this isn't real and you shouldn't use it" doesn't make something fringe, I don't know what would. Loki (talk) 08:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

A reliable source saying it is fringe. Aircorn (talk) 10:01, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

user:crossroads Can you clarify what you mean; ROGD is not a part of WPATH diagnostic criteria. It's a fringe theory popularized by anti-trans groups. Shrier's book is part of a broader and ongoing "culture war" campaign to undermine lgbtq+ rights and there are several places in this article where the language seems carefully chosen to either soften criticism for her or her ideas or to imply that her ideas carry more weight than they do. Let's be clear - Regnery Publishing publishes political propaganda and Shrier's "freelance journalism" career consists of writing outrage culture pieces for right wing media. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 13:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to see if there's consensus to change "contentious concept" in the second sentence to either "fringe" or "debunked" and the word "stated" in the third sentence to "claimed" which emphasizes the fact that these are false claims that Shrier is making. I'd also be open to other ideas for rewording/rewriting the lead to avoid giving the impression that there's any legitimate scientific debate around the ideas Shrier is presenting. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 14:21, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

It's a hypothesis that hasn't been proven, true, but it hasn't been "debunked" either, and there's "culture warring" going on on both sides. *Dan T.* (talk) 14:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

user:dtobias There's no ROGD "hypothesis". The "theory" originates from homophobic parents being surprised by their queer kids coming out. The littman paper literally searched out these parents, asked them if they thought ROGD was real then published a paper insisting that proved the matter. No major psychiatric or medical group recognizes ROGD and there is no legitimate research into the supposed "phenomenon". It's a theory that was cynically created to legitimize "gender critical" hate speech. We might as well be talking about whether phrenology proves the superiority of white men. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 14:46, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Based on peer-reviewed scholarship like this, I for one would call ROGD "debunked". Newimpartial (talk) 14:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: if you think that paper debunks it, you're really going to love this one from last month which states We did not find support within a clinical population for a new etiologic phenomenon of “ROGD” during adolescence. Among adolescents under age 16 seen in specialized gender clinics, associations between more recent gender knowledge and factors hypothesized to be involved in ROGD were either not statistically significant, or were in the opposite direction to what would be hypothesized. I'd be happiest saying it is debunked, but I'd also accept fringe. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the change of "contentious concept" to either of those options, and also with changing "stated" to "claimed". Both-sidesing this debate (I don't think the American Psychiatric Association is particularly interested in starting a culture war) doesn't change the fact that no peak bodies endorse the theory, or that the most comprehensive text reviewing the theory positively is the very book we are currently discussing. Bravetheif (talk) 05:46, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

What about the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and WPATH, among many other professional organizations, saying There are no sound empirical studies of ROGD and it has not been subjected to rigorous peer-review processes that are standard for clinical science. Further, there is no evidence that ROGD aligns with the lived experiences of transgender children and adolescents.? [1] Loki (talk) 20:52, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Thats not the same as saying it is fringe Aircorn (talk) 15:07, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes it is. Per WP:FRINGE: In Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. The APAs and WPATH represent the mainstream views in their particular field, they're saying it's departing from those views, boom, fringe. Doesn't mean "crazy" so we don't need them to say "crazy". Loki (talk)

That is defining the topic as it pertains to the guideline ("in Wikipedia parlance"). It is not saying that the word "fringe" in article text is exempt from the WP:V and WP:NOR policies. And that it departs "significantly" is questionable per the SOC 8 quote. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:41, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

That's an important point; there's a clear distinction between internal Wikipedia jargon and language as understood by the general public, which is what article space should be aiming for. To the general public, "fringe" has pejorative connotations that are usually not appropriate for articles. *Dan T.* (talk) 13:58, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

• No amount of agreement or WP:LOCALCONSENSUS among a few editors here permits overriding fundamental policies like WP:No original research and WP:NPOV. Any attempts to do so will not survive wider scrutiny. The article already states about ROGD, which is not recognized as a medical diagnosis by any major professional institution. Regarding "claim", see WP:CLAIM. A sociology paper (i.e. no medical expertise or peer-review) and a single WP:PRIMARY study do not justify editors reaching the original conclusion that it is "debunked" or "fringe".
  Regarding the claim that the methodology of the original study was uniquely bad, see [2]. As another example, a 2020 paper states, With regards to the referrals, in line with international trends [9–12], Italian’s population of trans* youths seem to be growing, particularly with respect to AFABs. Some respondents depicted referrals with traits of the so-called “rapid onset” [15] of gender incongruence, especially when describing AFABs, with pressing requests to start soon hormone therapies and an (apparent) lack of history of gender incongruence. However, this is a very complex phenomenon that needs further exploration.
  Now let's look at WPATH's views. Their 2018 position statement is that it constitutes nothing more than an acronym created to describe a proposed clinical phenomenon that may or may not warrant further peer-reviewed scientific investigation. (Emphasis added.) Since then, just this month, WPATH has released their draft version of the Standards of Care 8, to be released in the spring. To gain insight on their current thinking, we can look at their chapter on adolescents, which states, it is critical to consider the societal changes that have occurred over time in relation to transgender people. Given the increase in visibility of transgender and gender diverse identities, it is important to understand how increased awareness may impact gender development in different ways (Kornienko et al., 2016)....Another phenomenon is adolescents seeking care who have not apparently experienced and/or expressed gender diversity during their childhood years. One researcher attempted to study and describe a specific form of later-presenting gender diversity experience (Littman, 2018 [the ROGD paper]); however, the study contained significant methodological challenges which must be considered as context for the findings: 1) the study surveyed parents and not youth perspectives, and 2) recruitment included parents from community settings in which treatments for gender dysphoria are often characterized as pathological or undesired. The phenomenon of social influence on gender is salient, however, as some who have changed their thoughts about their own gender identity have described how social influence was relevant in their experience of their gender during adolescence (Vandenbussche, 2021). For a select subgroup of young people, in the context of exploration, social influence on gender may be a relevant issue and an important differential. This phenomenon is neither new nor surprising for health professionals working with adolescents; however, caution must be taken to avoid assuming these phenomena prematurely in an individual adolescent, as well as from datasets that may have been ascertained with potential sampling bias (WPATH, 2018). (Emphasis added.)
  Now, to be absolutely clear, my point is not that ROGD existing is the mainstream view. Rather, it is that it is not correct that the idea is already considered "debunked" or "fringe" by the relevant scientific community or that there is "no legitimate scientific debate". Neither are any of the unsupported conspiracy-theory-like accusations accurate. Therefore, I see no need to change how the idea is described in this article. Wikipedia does not advance the WP:POV of editors no matter how convinced they are of it. The idea is accurately described as contentious and unrecognized as a diagnosis by official medical bodies. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:41, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not promote a WP:POV, but it also doesn't mince words. The WPATH text you've cited pretty clearly rejects Littman's ROGD hypothesis, consistent with previous statements. What they do accept is that gender identity may have a social component, something no one in this thread is rejecting or even debating. "Irreversible Damage" isn't about general social aspects of gender identity, it is specifically about Littman's theory of ROGD, and this thread has yet to produce a single source that shows it is a mainstream scientific position. If it is not mainstream, then it is accurately described as "fringe", and any watering down of the phrase is simply WP:FALSEBALANCE. Likewise whether or not Littman's study was "uniquely bad" is of little actual relevance to this discussion. Her paper has (in my opinion, rightfully) come under heavy criticism for its methodology and data, and her pointing the finger at others to show they're just as bad doesn't improve the quality of the original paper. Finally, while the second source you've cited references ROGD, it doesn't seem to me to make an analysis one way or another. Any attempt to extract a meaningful position would be WP:SYNTH, and I could just as easily argue that the reason there is a significant increase in rates of diverse gender presentation is more a matter of destimagization and education. Bravetheif (talk) 10:02, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Crossroads, in your "unique" reading of WPATH you have watered down the social contagion theory of ROGD so that it becomes "maybe social factors matter". Well, duh. That isn't ROGD any more, and so I don't see how you can cite either the old or the new WPATH as holding open the door for ROGD. There simply isn't any legitimate scientific debate to be had - I have enough faith in your research skills that, if there were, you would have found it by now. Newimpartial (talk) 12:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

It sounds like perhaps we should make a post on the Fringe Theory Noticeboard, as the header for it clearly states Post here to seek advice on whether a particular topic is fringe or mainstream, whether there may be problematic promotion of fringe theories, or whether undue weight is being given to fringe theories. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:09, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Littman's paper says, towards its end where hypotheses are developed, "Hypothesis 1: Social influences can contribute to the development of gender dysphoria". That sounds similar to the "Well, duh" statement that "maybe social factors matter". Later, it says "Finally, further exploration is needed", thus indicating that the paper wasn't intended to be the final proof of its hypotheses, but merely an opening toward examining them further in the hopes of finding more solid conclusions. Opponents of Littman seem to be attributing much more extremeness to the paper than it actually has. *Dan T.* (talk) 02:00, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

You are presenting the Littman paper as though it did not contain all of the "social contagion" and "peer contagion" nonsense, or its (dubious and pseudo-scientific) Hypothesis 3. It does. Recognizing that social factors matter doesn't imply support for the social contagion framework, which is both the paper's most visible "contribution" and also the point that Shrier leans into in particular. Newimpartial (talk) 02:16, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

This is not a debate about the merits or failings of Littman's paper, just whether it is mainstream or fringe. I have yet to see a single peak body accepting *specifically* Littman's theory. The very fact that the original paper is (according to you) somewhat inconclusive, and the very book we're currently discussing is the most comprehensive review of the thesis indicates to me that it is fringe. As a side note, you seem to have missed the third hypothesis of Littman's paper, the part people consider extreme, that theorize that Gender Dysphoria is transmissible. Bravetheif (talk) 02:48, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

To describe it as "fringe", specifically, you need WP:MEDRS sources that call it that specifically. Otherwise, you have to stick with the current MEDRS sources, which are that it is contentious and unrecognized as a medical diagnosis. It really is that simple, per WP:NOR. Newimpartial's watered down reading of WPATH as just "social factors" is not accurate; they cited Littman and then shortly therefter state, The phenomenon of social influence on gender is salient, however, as some who have changed their thoughts about their own gender identity have described how social influence was relevant in their experience of their gender during adolescence (Vandenbussche, 2021). For a select subgroup of young people, in the context of exploration, social influence on gender may be a relevant issue and an important differential. The prominent WPATH SOC 8 describing gender dysphoria resulting from "social influence" being "an important differential" in "a select subgroup" right after citing Littman cannot be twisted into 'the idea is fringe'. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:03, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

WPATH acknowledging that social aspects may have an influence over gender *identity*, while in proximity to a discussion of the Littman paper, is not a tacit endorsement on it's theory on the transmissiblity of gender *dysphoria*. The two terms are not synonymous and, even if you (wrongly) decided to interpret it as such, accepting that there may be a social influence on dysphoria is not the same as endorsing the specific theory. In fact, in the previous sentences they reject the Littman paper on grounds of flaws in its methodology. Considering that, and reading over WP:MEDRS, I see nothing specifying the requirement for a direct quote when calling a theory "fringe". In fact, WP:MEDSCI pretty clearly states that editors should summarize the positions of "major professional medical or scientific societies". ROGD is not recognised as a formal diagnosis by either WPATH or the APA, and that the only subsequent clinical study has failed to support the theory, points strongly to being, currently, a fringe position. Bravetheif (talk) 06:54, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

WPATH is talking about medical care, not just identity. Gender dysphoria is the diagnosis under which such care is given. They did not say they "reject" the paper; they named those issues as context, but still cited it. If it were "fringe", they would not be describing it as they do. But above all, Wikipedia goes by what is WP:Verifiable, so no amount of synthesizing that it is fringe from sources that don't specifically say that is usable. Crossroads ^-talk- 07:25, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I would appreciate an explanation (obviously outside our own positions and biases on this issue) of what semantic difference there is between describing ROGD as "fringe", and as "contentious" that makes one WP:SYNTH and the other not. Neither "contentious" nor "fringe" are direct quotes, and appear more to be an attempt at summarizing scientific consensus of the topic (inline with WP:MEDSCI). Frankly, if you're that hung up on it, "disproven" or "discredited" is a far more accurate descriptor, as the previously mentioned clinical trial "did not find support within a clinical population for a new etiologic phenomenon of “ROGD” during adolescence". That aside, I don't think the mere citation of Littman's paper by WPATH means the theory has any credence. They make no positive statements as to the hypothesis or the paper as a whole, and the fact they don't outright reject the idea that there may be a social component to gender identity doesn't mean they accept or legitimize Littman's specific theory. As I previously mentioned, the following sentences also discusses gender identity, not dysphoria. As far as I'm concerned, the fact that no relevant bodies recognize the diagnosis is all that is necessary to describe it as fringe. Bravetheif (talk) 08:58, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Crossroads Can you try to find a way to make your point that's a little less wordy? It feels a little like you're just trying to bury dissenting opinions Voiceofreason01 (talk) 15:58, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Are you sure you addressed that to the right person? Korny O'Near (talk) 17:44, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Unsure if User:Voiceofreason01 was trying to refer to me or Crossroads, but I'll assume me and I apologize if my comment is a little wordy or unclear, my intention is not to bury dissent. If people want a more summarized discussion of my position, it's thusly: No peak bodies recognize ROGD as a clinical diagnosis. Inline with WP:MEDSCI, and in order to not present a WP:FALSEBALANCE, our description of the theory should reflect that. A hypothesis not accepted by mainstream organisations is, by definition, fringe. If other editors consider that summation to be WP:SYNTH (but "contentious" not to be for some reason), then the theory could be described as "debunked", "unsupported", "discredited", or "unsupported in a clinical context" with direct citation to this study. Bravetheif (talk) 02:07, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

our description of the theory should reflect that - and it does. Quoting the article text: not recognized as a medical diagnosis by any major professional institution. A single WP:PRIMARY study is not sufficient to describe something as debunked or discredited, especially in view of the other sources I quoted. "Unsupported" is not far off from the status quo, but considering the way SOC 8 cites Littman and another study, that seems rather cherry-picked. 'Not recognized by professional institutions' is fully verifiable and completely accurate, and I see no way in which these other terms improve understanding of the topic.

Regarding "contentious", this is a synonym of various words which are probably used in the sources given for that. It was not my intention to challenge that claim, which I don't think is as unlikely. However, I don't think that word adds much meaning and may even distract compared to the phrase after it about 'not recognized', so I don't care if it were dropped.

Voiceofreason01, per WP:ONUS and WP:BRD, no one should be WP:Edit warring in preferred text. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:56, 10 December 2021 (UTC) expanded Crossroads ^-talk- 07:04, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I do not think your sources sufficiently establishes that ROGD is a mainstream view, in fact, to quote you: my point is not that ROGD existing is the mainstream view. That makes it the definitionally fringe: not part of the mainstream.... If you still find the phrasing unacceptable, this secondary source can be cited as evidence for the wording "disproven" and, at the very least, I feel "unsupported" can be supported and, while more contentious, is more concrete than "contentious". As an aside, with all due respect, I don't agree with your reading of SOC 8. They speak of Littman's paper in purely negative terms and, in my opinion, are attempting to make clear that, while they are against her specific paper and thus, her theory (which is the status quo until they accept a study in it's favour, and Wikipedia does not base it's articles on anticipated evidence), they are not outright rejecting the concept that gender may have a social component. Recognition of the broad concept in which a theory could be categorised is not an endorsement of the specific hypothesis. Bravetheif (talk) 11:10, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I note that the article on Atheism doesn't contain the word "fringe", despite all sorts of big powerful mainstream institutions opposing it. *Dan T.* (talk) 14:03, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

• Note: I have sought input from editors at the fringe theories noticeboard. Here's a link to the noticeboard section. Firefangledfeathers 14:01, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Abigail Shrier's speech at Princeton

Shrier has posted her speech at Princeton University where she talks about why she wrote the book. Perhaps there are quotes there which are appropriate for this article. (She's not very complimentary of Wikipedia: "If you form views based on those Wikipedia articles or reports by corrupt fact-checkers, if you act based on them, are you exercising freedom of will?") The posting of this speech has produced a cascade of further reactions; the blog Why Evolution Is True praised it, and this in turn prompted Richard Dawkins to tweet in praise of the book. *Dan T.* (talk) 14:15, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

She also repeats lies and slurs about transgender people. It's not a bad speech as far of these things go but it's the same thing she says in every speech/interview she gives. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 14:25, 10 December 2021 (UTC)