This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Undid change of wording from 'change sex' to 'change gender'. Most trans people feel they remain the gender they've always been, they are merely making their body conform to it. Editor claims in edit comment that no government accepts hormonal change as sex change, but this is not true in my experience (state of California will), and Wikipedia is not place to publish OR. Anniepoo ( talk) 19:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I plan to expand more on the information covered in the 7th edition of the SOC as well as on the protocol for children and adolescents. I am also going to find sources for the end of the article and the section on criticism from intersex individuals.
EmKayEdits ( talk) 16:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2021 and 16 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): EmKayEdits.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 10:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
With version 8 now published, information pertaining to versions 6 and 7 should be moved to specific sections and de-emphasized and the current status should be described in greater detail. CyreJ ( talk) 09:35, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm unsure which one to use. It currently reads 'version' with this edit that I made (WPATH uses 'version'; it was the more common wording when I made the edit), but I've seen sources describe it as 'version' and 'edition'. I also haven't been able to find WP guidelines disambiguating the two. LightNightLights ( talk) 02:51, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Sideswipe9th claimed that my edit was unsourced and "didn't seem to be true". The article said that the Eunuch thing was controversial, and I explained why it was controversial. Namely, that it linked to child castration porn. I did forget to add a second source, but I just checked and the archived Economist article also had that information in it. There are now two reliable sources for the claim. We shall see if it gets reverted again. Benevolent Prawn ( talk) 17:35, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
By !vote tally, the yeahs have it, 16-10.
The sources proposed here are mainly from the British media: Neue Zürcher Zeitung, The Economist, The Daily Telegraph, The Scotsman, LBC and The Times of London. WP:RSP lists three of these as generally reliable, The Scotsman is listed as a newspaper of record for Scotland, the NZZ is one for Switzerland, while LBC seems to receive generally positive commentary on RSN. Several RfCs were launched about the reliability of some of the news resources, including The Economist, The Telegraph, The Times of London, and which are connected to this discussion. I strongly discourage this behaviour because not only this makes closing stuff harder but also attracts reasonable criticism of forum-shopping. Still, as of the moment of writing, all of these discussions appear to be heading towards "consensus for general reliability". (I will change my closure if any of these RfCs go the other way). I will use arguments presented in those RfCs and apply them here if necessary.
Opponents contend that the British media landscape is generally hostile to trans coverage and therefore generally British media reporting on transgender issues is questionable (though may be better in other issues); and also that since it was basically not reported outside the UK, we should dismiss it as the outlets that did care are all biased towards one side. Among the arguments I was able to find were these two comments about bias in reporting. That criticism also appears in other scholarly articles and books which do not appear to be about opinion pieces: [1], [2]. However, since these were not mentioned, I am not able to use these to weigh the strength of the argument; besides, a report commissioned by the Independent Press Standards Organisation found that generally, the news reporting on transgender issues was heated and had strong wording but remained within IPSO guidelines (IPSO faces severe criticism, but well, we have what we have). There was the PinkNews article asserting Telegraph's inaccurate coverage on transgender issues, but even if accepted at face value, this is not by itself evidence of massive fraudulent coverage. In any case, the evidence presented was challenged and it seems that others either ignored it or remained largely unconvinced by presented proofs. Some of them (like the CNN article or the analysis by prof. Paul Baker were not challenged as much but, as presented, they also show little evidence of persistent factual inaccuracy in this topic area. There is, however, ample evidence of systematic anti-trans rights bias (mainly by selection of content they wish to publish), at least in the case of The Telegraph. As for NZZ, while factual inaccuracy was not questioned, its reliability was challenged based on evident editorialising within news reporting and references to Twitter as evidence of controversy (these points were not addressed by the proponents). In all of these cases, WP:BIASED suggests that articles may be used as reliable sources even if they have a slant.
There was also some discussion about whether the information about the "outcry" should be held to stricter WP:MEDRS standards, but it appears that editors generally agree that it falls outside of the MEDRS requirements. This interpretation is indeed covered by WP:BMI, the "Society and culture" point. However, any mention of "health risks" should be backed up by medical literature.
There was no scholarly commentary about SoC-8 in the discussion, and no source among the six says that there is significant controversy in the academia. The sources approvingly cite clearly activist (and, as some argued, fringe) organisations, such as For Women Scotland, Genspect, and SEGM. There were two RfCs on RSN about the latter two, which I closed as showing consensus that they are not reliable for facts about transgender topics, and along the same lines, neither does the first appear to be so. Several editors said that quoting them or mentioning them would violate due weight, and since no one advocated to quote them, I assume that's the consensus here.
The final question is whether any mention here is warranted at all. There seems to be more opposition against this version of text, as compared to this one. Proponents suggest that coverage in multiple reliable sources about the issue is good enough to have at least a sentence, even if the sources themselves are biased, which was almost the entirety of yes votes. Opponents argue that the coverage would be bad as it would be composed of multiple sources that exhibit a one-way bias, even if the sources are reliable; or alternatively that they are unreliable for the topic. There's also the issue that the current size of the "Version 8" paragraph does not allow for a lot of criticism to be mentioned as it would be out of proportion to the description of that version's contents.
WP:UNDUE says that Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.
As established above, most, if not all, of the resources should pass the reliability criterion. Additionally, the prominence of the opposing view to that presented by the newspapers about SoC-8 is impossible to establish from these discussions because none have been presented or likely published yet (which could mean that the academia doesn't seem to be bothered for now, or that it is but the papers are undergoing peer review and so aren't publicly available yet). As was mentioned by a user, the concept of "due weight" is relative, so it only works in comparison with the prominence of other viewpoints, but there's nothing to compare to. This means that there is essentially one viewpoint published in some reliable sources, and no other exists for balance in the eunuch issue for now.
After excluding the no !votes whose main argument was that the sources are unreliable, for the reasons I mentioned above, it appears that there is rough consensus that a short mention is DUE. WP:PROPORTION, however, asks us not to make excess stress on what could be seen as a minor aspect of the subject being described. Therefore, it should be no longer than a sentence and address only the point that such outcry in the press existed.
Excuse me for the long-windedness. ( non-admin closure) Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 05:29, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Should the article mention the controversy over the Eunuch chapter in SOC8?
gnu
57
16:51, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
believes all trans people are a "huge problem to a sane world"according to our own article on her. The Telegraph, besides its absolutely wild misrepresentation of the
most widespread protocol used by professionals working with transgender or gender-variant peopleaccording to this very article as "secret" and "controversial", has a documented history of misrepresenting trans issues. Like, these sources are just no good. They're bad. They're not reliable in the least. We're in Fox News or worse territory here. Loki ( talk) 17:38, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
recognized by the community as reliable for factsin the domain of transgender issues is sadly unsupported by evidence. Repeating something over and over again does not make it true. And the Swiss source makes a statement attributed to "media sources", not the statement of supposed fact that was being shoehorned into the article. Newimpartial ( talk) 00:36, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
over and over againthat this topic should be carved out because of a supposed bias (when biased sources can still be reliable for facts anyway and this is never applied to sources with obvious opposing bias like PinkNews) does not negate this. As for NZZ, the RfC didn't ask about attribution; rather two editors were removing it entirely rather than adding attribution, if that were the concern. Crossroads -talk- 00:55, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
mainstreamanti-trans broadsheets.
If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true, or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.As for the Swiss/German Neue Zürcher Zeitung source, I've ran it through machine translation ( DeepL and Google Translate) and have a concern that this is an op-ed (and so subject to WP:RSOPINION), and not factual reporting. When I find translated quotations like
In the future, will there also be "eunuch" on questionnaires or in job advertisements in addition to the categories male, female, diverse?(first paragraph),
If you go to the website of the Eunuch Archives, you can easily get to the chatroom #Lobby. There, users have names like [usernames snipped] as an inspection reveals. Now that sounds less like a harmless online support group.(eleventh paragraph), and
The very idea that a child might consider himself or herself a eunuch is likely to sound disconcerting to alarming to most ears. On social networks like Twitter, the aspect is causing an outcry.(fourteenth paragraph). While I can't rule out this being a machine translation artefact, I am understandably suspicious that this is an op-ed and not factual reporting. Is there anyone here fluent and confident enough in German to verify if the machine translation is accurate? Sideswipe9th ( talk) 01:10, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
"the source has taken a negative stance on the issue"doesn't really do justice to what quality sources actually say. Newimpartial ( talk) 21:31, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
pro-trans organizations, but PinkNews certainly doesn't engage in political campaigns the way the UK broadsheets do. Newimpartial ( talk) 22:37, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
the most widespread protocol used by professionals working with transgender or gender-variant people, as "secret") to be a good reason to not use it? Loki ( talk) 22:24, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article. Again, if people want to argue that these are reliable sources in this context, they should show that the sources are generally regarded as such. If that's true, it shouldn't be that hard to show, given the sources' prominence. -- Tamzin cetacean needed (she|they|xe) 11:24, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
what is the policy route to selecting that over the dross in the Telegraph?It's not really either/or; whatever the results of this RFC, it doesn't prevent us from including the NYT's coverage. DUEness and WP:FALSEBALANCE would be solid policy routes, IMO. Surely, if the NYT covered the SoC (in a fair and in-depth way), it merits inclusion? The stuff NYT covers wouldn't be subject to MEDRS, since it's about how they arrived at decisions; MEDRS can be used to explain the decisions themselves. DFlhb ( talk) 17:29, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Very strongly sourced? That's ... interesting. Newimpartial ( talk) 23:51, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
explicit non-medical material, while meeting WP:V and NPOV? I can't speak for anyone else, but that has been my most urgent problem all along. Newimpartial ( talk) 16:46, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
a fetish forum that hosts and produces extreme sadomasochistic written pornography involving the castration and torture of children, but sadly Glinner is not a reliable source. Newimpartial ( talk) 16:43, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
a government organisation might direct the public towards such materialisn't actually about WPATH 8, though, is it? It is an issue in Scotland concerning Scottish entities and largely Scottish reaction. So it may be DUE for inclusion somewhere on Wikipedia, but I'm having trouble seeing how it is DUE for the article on WPATH, since we aren't really covering the reaction to WPATH 8 in, say, New Zealand or in Massatcheussets, two broadly comparable jurisdictions. Newimpartial ( talk) 23:05, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
point of viewin which
Castrating a childis
considered desirable. Neither, to the best of my knowledge, does any version of WPATH SOC 8 - at least, I haven't seen that allegation in even the most lurid of the depictions in the BIASEDSOURCES.
all decidedly BIASEDSOURCESmight strike as a case in point. Gitz ( talk) ( contribs) 22:48, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
gnu 57 17:21, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Die SOC8 beziehen sich mehrfach auf das 1998 gegründete Eunuch Archive, das weltweit über 130 000 registrierte Mitglieder zählt [...] In verschiedenen Recherchen wurde nachgewiesen, dass sich im geschützten Bereich des Archivs eine grosse Anzahl von Geschichten befindet, die direkt mit dem sadistischen sexuellen Missbrauch von Kindern zu tun haben. [...] Das Dokument enthielt laut Medienberichten einen direkten Link zu den Eunuch Archives , «die grafische und sexuell eindeutige fiktive Beschreibungen von Kinder-Eunuchen enthalten».
...a Swiss source that, as far as I can tell, can't be used to support any of the content...)? gnu 57 17:38, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
was criticized by representatives of Genspect and For Women Scotland), rather than a vague
was controversial. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 17:33, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
The paper also provided a direct link to a website that included graphic and sexually explicit fictional descriptions of child eunuchs.Regarding
your preferred article version, please recall that I didn't write any of the content under dispute. gnu 57 12:03, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
a mainstream news organisation. And this may be a language issue, but
sexually explicitis not a synonym for
sexualized. Newimpartial ( talk) 12:11, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
pretty nuanced positionon Trans issues, and would like to see some supporting evidence for that. This isn't The Guardian, which does show nuance (or perhaps simply internal division) on these issues. Newimpartial ( talk) 11:29, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Freeman told Viner: “It is astonishing to me that the progressive media has handed such an own goal to the right, closing its eyes to concerns about the safeguarding out of fear that to do otherwise would lead to accusations of bigotry. You have said that both sides in the gender debate are equally passionate – but only one side demands censorship. It seems to me that at the Guardian that side has won.”Sweet6970 ( talk) 12:58, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Note - gnu57 has taken it upon themselves to continue this discussion by other means at WT:RSN (sections on The Economist, The Telegraph and The Times). I'm feeling whiplash. Newimpartial ( talk) 19:47, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Accusarions of forum shopping, but that shouldn't be me. Newimpartial ( talk) 14:15, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
I've added some text to the article, per the closing commments. It ended up two sentences rather than one, but I think it was important to set it in context. -- Colin° Talk 11:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Colin, Looks OK for me. The only thing I wanted to note is that the text suggests that the eunuch chapter was in the draft (and it is sort of assumed that it was thrown away on final publication), while in fact, there is a chapter on eunuchs in the final version. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 14:44, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Changed some criticisms of SOC-6 to past tense - I think we can assume any debate over SOC-6 is over. Should the whole description of versions 6 and 7 be changed to past tense? What's the general policy for talking about technically still existing, but superseded longer relevant documents? CyreJ ( talk) 21:43, 7 May 2023 (UTC)