Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Transgender health care misinformation/1

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Transgender health care misinformation

The following discussion 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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: A 180kb review has passed the article. Hopefully this can end here. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:01, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Claims of massive

WP:NPOV violations were made at Template:Did you know nominations/Transgender health care misinformation. Courtesy pings to @Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist, Starship.paint, WhatamIdoing, Colin, and Void if removed:. Launchballer 11:57, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

1) Wrt the peer-reviewed claim: Colin removed it from the Cass Review article, was reverted, then went to @Snokalok's page who pointed him towards the p[ast talk page consensus at Cass Review to include the note it wasn't peer reviewed[1] It's been noted at the Cass Review article for months now.
2) Void if Removed claimed the article had NPOV violations, nobody on talk agreed (he was not part of the DYK conversation btw, Colin just cited him)
3) This article was also reviewed by @LoomCreek and @Dan Leonard, and partially by @IntentionallyDense who should also be pinged
4)
WP:GAR says Consider raising issues at the talk page of the article or requesting assistance from major contributors. This has not been done. Colin did not raise specific NPOV issues apart from the peer-reviewed claim (which is silly per point 1), he just repeatedly insulted me at DYK (and had other editors warn him for that behavior - Snokalok, @LokiTheLiar, and @Generalrelative)[2][3]
I'm a little unsure how GAR works, if a user goes onto DYK and posts some walls of text insulting another, and brings up only one issue that nobody agrees with and has been talk page consensus for a while, and never goes to talk to improve things (even after being asked to), does that really justify a GAR? Are they normally opened with claims of massive WP:NPOV violations were made without identifying them? Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:05, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most GARs are not opened with claims of massive NPOV violations. However, having a genuine concern that there seem to be such violations is a valid reason for GAR. Any non-trivial level of non-compliance with any one (or more) of the Wikipedia:Good article criteria is a valid reason for GAR. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:33, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I may be old fashioned, but I was under the impression that if somebody claimed an article (with a few dozen contributors and talk page discussions agreeing it's neutral) was full of NPOV violations, they were expected to provide at least some evidence that's true. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:42, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience, and specifically considering the behavior around trans-related articles during the last ~15 years, I have found that editors frequently do not operate according to the usual principle that "whatever the game, whatever the rules, the rules are the same for both sides". I find that people who already agree with an article insist upon unimpeachable proof of error, and that people who already disagree with it do not require any at all. There is, in my experience, no comfortable middle ground.
If the article is going to be tagged with {{POV}}, then someone has to start a discussion "identifying specific issues that are actionable within Wikipedia's content policies", or the tag can be removed. This is probably lower than your goal of "some evidence that's true", and it only applies for the specific and exclusive purpose of slapping a POV banner across the article. There are no such requirements for accusations made in any other venue or through any other form. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:38, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Genuine" isn't really the issue here. I fully believe that Colin's concern is *genuine*, but also his role in discussions about the Cass Review for a while has been to, and I'm trying to be as polite as possible about this, make very strong accusations about other editors ignoring science or being "conspiracy theorists" because they doubt the reliability of the Cass Review. He's already been warned about this at AE once and seems intent on continuing.
I call attention to this dynamic to point out that Colin's opinion is not the consensus even if he is in general a well-respected editor who generally knows what he's talking about. Loki (talk) 22:33, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Genuine" is the issue here, in the sense that GARs don't get closed just because other editors think the concern is misplaced. We have deleted GARs, e.g., for being outright vandalism, but if there's a genuine concern, the path forward is to address is. That could mean explaining why the article is correct as it is, in which case the GAR will close as affirming the GA status. It could mean editors reaching a consensus that it does not meet the GA critieria, in which case the GAR will close with delisting the article. It could also mean improving the article. For example, this:
The KID-team at Sweden's Karolinska University Hospital in Stockholm, the second-largest hospital system in the country, announced that from May 2021 it would discontinue providing puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones to children under 16. Additionally, Karolinska changed its policy to cease providing puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones to teenagers 16–18, outside of approved clinical trials.
is rather more news style than is really appropriate (focusing on what was "announced" is news style). That could be re-written this way:
In May 2021, Sweden's Karolinska University Hospital discontinued puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for everyone under 16. Teenagers age 16 to 18 could obtain them through clinical trials.
Frankly, the three-sentence-long review at Talk:Transgender health care misinformation/GA2 does not do a good job of convincing me that the review was adequate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:53, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Void if Removed claimed the article had NPOV violations, nobody on talk agreed
Anyone can read the talk and see this is not true. Multiple editors were raising POV issues starting last December, long before I commented in mid/late January. Void if removed (talk) 22:55, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Cass Review—a non-peer-reviewed independent evaluation of trans healthcare within NHS England - the non-peer-reviewed claim fails verification with the provided source. On the Cass Review article, the non-peer-reviewed claim is sourced to this pdf, where it can be found on page 10, TABLE 2.1, after which this fact is never mentioned again. Indeed, I cannot find this mentioned again in any other reliable source, only Reddit communities and suchlike. So, if nobody else seems to care about this, why should we?  Tewdar  18:17, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At the DYK, the "ALT1" proposal says that it's a myth that trans kids tend to desist. This is 100% verifiable in reliable sources. However, I've been wondering whether that's entirely true – not that we're after Wikipedia:The Truth exactly, but that a simple "it's misinformation" might be misleading.
So let me tell a different story, with a claim that is equally verifiable as misinformation, but perhaps you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that.
Once upon a time, 300 18-year-old females went to college. In their first year, 200 of them got pregnant. Half of the pregnant ones had abortions or miscarriages during the first trimester. The other half gave birth.
  • The ones who didn't get pregnant until after university have a lifetime risk of breast cancer of 8.1%.
  • The ones whose pregnancies ended in births have a lifetime risk of breast cancer of 5.3%.
  • The ones whose pregnancies ended in abortions or miscarriages have a lifetime risk of breast cancer of 8.1%.
(These are real lifetime risk numbers for US residents, assuming ordinary risk factors.)
Now we could say that if you get pregnant at the age of 18, then having an abortion will cause your lifetime risk of breast cancer increases by 50%, compared to the alternative of giving birth. We could also say that if you get pregnant at the age of 18, then having an abortion will cause your lifetime risk of breast cancer to be exactly the same as if you hadn't gotten pregnant in the first place. Whether the risk is higher depends on the baseline you're choosing.
It is misinformation to say that abortions and miscarriages cause breast cancer. But it is also misinformation to tell pregnant 18 year olds that the decision about whether to get an abortion will make no difference to their lifetime cancer risks.
The reason I have told this long story is because I was reminded of it when I read the ALT1 proposal, which aligns with the sentence in the lead "Common false claims include...that most pre-pubertal transgender children "desist" and cease desiring transition after puberty" and the section Transgender health care misinformation#Desistance myth.
Some of this section seems more overtly POV push-y but still interesting to me personally, like the sentences talking about the etymology of the word desistance and the connection to criminal recidivism. "He took the word from this other psychiatric condition, and that other psychiatric condition took the word from criminology" isn't relevant to misinformation (so it shouldn't be in this article), and it feels like a way to smear the concept. I am fascinated by this factoid, but this is probably a violation of 3b: "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)".
Of more importance, and also harder to fix, I wonder whether we've done a good job of explaining reality here. There's ~375 words in this section, and – if I've understood it correctly, which I'm not sure about – it may be failing 1a: "the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct".
If I'm correct, reality looks something like this:
  • In the 1980s, gender clinics saw mostly young AMABs, of which a very large fraction were gender non-conforming (e.g., little boys who liked wearing princess dresses but who didn't verbally express a "consistent, persistent, and insistent" desire to be girls) and who mostly grew up to be fabulous gay men, plus a small fraction of "actually trans" kids, who grew up to be trans women.
  • Almost every bit of research on the subject (ever) uses a different definition and therefore gets a different result.
  • When we look back at those studies, we say "Eh, those kids weren't really trans. The real trans kids want to transition."
So it seems to be true that:
  • "Actually trans" kids always grow up to be trans, but
  • Most of the time, if the parents think their kid might be trans as a result of their gender non-conforming behavior, the parents are wrong, and the kid is going to grow up to be gay but cisgender.
If that's correct, then the article isn't IMO communicating it in an understandable fashion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:31, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your summary isn't *very* wrong, but I feel like the emphasis is wrong, because you're using the actual definition of "actually trans" in one place but in other places you're phrasing it as though the way we know kids are actually trans is whether they end up transitioning. That's not true. How this actually works is that generally gender non-conforming behavior is not a good indication that a kid will be trans as an adult, but the same sort of questions that would detect transness in an adult, such as directly asking a kid if they want to be a girl, do work, and kids who consistently say "yes I want to be a girl" end up growing up to be trans women.
I agree this could be clearer in the article, which probably should explain the full situation. But I don't think that it's a failure to be clear, because the statement as phrased really is true. You wouldn't need to say "scientists used to think small amounts of alcohol are good for you" to be able to say "scientists currently think no amount of alcohol is better for you than not drinking". Loki (talk) 22:45, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And the statement is true "as phrased" that if you're 18 and pregnant and obtain an abortion, your lifetime risk of breast cancer just went up 50%. But it's not clear.
I agree that you don't have to explain past beliefs. If you agree with me, then perhaps you'd like to blank the ~third of Transgender health care misinformation#Desistance myth that is all about past beliefs, and perhaps add a clear statement that "generally gender non-conforming behavior is not a good indication that a kid" is actually trans. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:58, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is all stuff that can/should be in Gender dysphoria in children. It doesn't belong on a page about "misinformation" without strong independent sources that it actually is "misinformation" and not just hyperbolically expressed differences of opinion. Void if removed (talk) 23:20, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to "will most kids today desist" is "we don't know".
It used to be the case that they did, but clinics in the 80s then were as much about stopping prepubescent boys from growing up gay as growing up trans, so unpicking the more coercive/homophobic methods used in the past is difficult.
However, once blockers and came onto the scene, GIDS found 99.5% persisted.
This also coincided with an exponential increase in the number of teenage girls presenting at GIDS in gender distress, to the point they now outnumber boys 2 or 3 to 1.
So the open question is: do blockers (and to a lesser extent social transition) cause a persistence of gender incongruence that would otherwise have resolved during/after adolescence? Are the factors that affected pre-teen boys in the 80s the same as those affecting adolescent girls in the 2010s?
We have multiple unknowns, and I think it is RGW to present any of this as misinformation. The only MEDRS in the "desistance myth" section is a systematic review that says best quantitative estimates are that 83% desist - which means it isn't a myth. Void if removed (talk) 23:16, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
VIR is misquoting the source. As was discussed on the talk page (here) the MEDRS explicitly describes the sources of the 83% desistance as poor quality. Relm (talk) 03:44, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Misquoting? The abstract says "Quantitative studies were all poor quality, with 83% of 251 participants reported as desisting". Or are you saying that since the studies are "poor quality", they can't also be the "best quantitative estimates" actually available? Sometimes "the best" is also pretty bad (and not just for trans-related research. For example, our best treatments for chronic low back pain are mostly ineffective, and the research on Back labor, which affects about 100 million women each year, is worse than than the research on trans people). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:52, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am saying that VIR is quoting the MEDRS as if the MEDRS shows 83% desistance as its own claim:

We have multiple unknowns, and I think it is RGW to present any of this as misinformation. The only MEDRS in the "desistance myth" section is a systematic review that says best quantitative estimates are that 83% desist - which means it isn't a myth.

This is not a truthful depiction of the MEDRS's view of this source who's conclusion is quoted by YFNS below. It is
WP:CHERRYPICKING at best. Relm (talk) 19:44, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
It looks to me like the review calculated that 83% itself, and does not disavow it.
What they present in their conclusions is a (non-scientific/human-values) recommendation that nobody actually care whether desistance happens. They recommend a short-term focus: Fix today's distress today, and iff today's fix results in distress tomorrow, then fix tomorrow's distress tomorrow. Do not worry about tomorrow, for sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof – poetic advice, but not science. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what the review is stating, and the way that the 83% number is being employed without the context from the MEDRS which is critical of the definitions used to get to that number and other specifics of the study involved is cherry-picking and tendentious. The characterization of it being stated here seems poetic, but is far from scientific. Relm (talk) 02:14, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think this is a fair description?
"Five quantitative studies that cumulatively found 83% of 251 people desisting, but the review described these quantitative studies as 'all poor quality'." WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:43, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, a better one would be "A statistic that ~80% desist after puberty emerged from five studies of a total of 251 children from the late 2000s that used DSM-3, DSM-4, and DSM-4-TR diagnoses of
gender identity change efforts
".
Summarizing an article whose point is that this 80% number people keep throwing around is ridiculously flawed - these studies don't even talk about the same thing they just use the same word for different phenomenon as saying the best quantitative estimates are that 83% desist is silly. What definition of desistance is that 83% figure using? None, because the review explains where the 80% figure comes from (From all of these collections of studies emerged the commonly used statistic stating that ∼80% of TGE youth will desist after puberty) but it does not claim this number is accurate or meaningful. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 04:03, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I didn't ask about anything involving the word "best". Is this reply just more of your disagreement with Void?
What I asked about is a sentence along the lines of "Five quantitative studies that cumulatively found 83% of 251 people desisting, but the review described these quantitative studies as 'all poor quality'."
I was actually asking Relm, but feel free to answer. Let me be more specific about the question: Do you think that if such a sentence were in the article, that it would be a {{POV}} problem? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:20, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My response was primarily to you as that sentence would be a POV problem. As the review pointed out: these studies all used different definitions of desistance. If a review says "Studies 1-5 used different definitions of X. Collectively, they are used to say that the rate of X is Y. This is problematic due to issues ABC, including the different definitions of X. We recommend people don't even use X anymore." - then translating that into wikivoice as "a review found on average the rate of X is Y" leaves out the most important part, what actually is "X" in this situation?
From the review: From all of these collections of studies emerged the commonly used statistic stating that ∼80% of TGE youth will desist after puberty, a statistic that has been critiqued by other works based on poor methodologic quality, the evolving understanding of gender and probable misclassification of nonbinary individuals, and the practice of attempting to dissuade youth from identifying as transgender in some of these studies ... None of the quantitative studies explicitly defined desistance.31,33,51–53 Three of the quantitative studies had similar inferred definitions based on the disappearance of GD.51,52,53 The other two studies had inferred definitions relating to distress concerning gender identity and desire for medical intervention. ... all the articles conflated these two ideas, implying that the disappearance of GD also meant that the TGE child identified as cisgender after puberty.
Taking your suggested sentence, Five quantitative studies that cumulatively found 83% of 251 people desisting, but the review described these quantitative studies as 'all poor quality and modifying it to Five quantitative studies that cumulatively found 83% of 251 people <definition of desistance>, ..., what <definition of desistance> would be there?
To stick to the review, it would have to be something like Five quantitative studies that didn't explicitly define desistance cumulatively found 83% of 251 people desisted, inferrably defined as either the disappearance of "gender identity disorder in children" or "relating to distress concerning gender identity and desire for medical intervention.". The review described these all as "poor quality" and noted critiques of their methodologic quality, outdated understandings of gender, misclassifications of nonbinary individuals, and usage of
gender identity change efforts. It also noted they erroneously conflated disappearance of GD with cessation of transgender identity. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:48, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm getting "desistance reviews based on poor quality studies are extremely X, but puberty blocker reviews based on poor quality studies are extremely Y" vibes.  Tewdar  23:02, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
YFNS, that sentence has been in the article for over a month. If you think that sentence is a POV problem, then this GAR is probably justified, and it fails Wikipedia:Did you know/Guidelines#External policy compliance, so you should withdraw the DYK nomination. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:16, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
YFNS, that sentence has been in the article for over a month
The text in the article has been A systematic review of research relating to the topic in 2022 found it was poorly defined: studies sometimes did not define it or equally defined it as desistance of transgender identity or desistance of gender dysphoria. They also found none of the definitions allowed for dynamic or nonbinary gender identities and the majority of articles published were editorial pieces. In total, thirty definitions for desistance were found from 35 pieces of literature. This included 5 quantitative studies that cumulatively found 83% of 251 people desisting, but the review described these quantitative studies as "all poor quality", with none of them having "explicitly defined desistance".[4] (bolded, is what I said it would be a POV issue to leave out)
That's a decent summary of the article without NPOV problems. Your quotation Five quantitative studies that cumulatively found 83% of 251 people desisting, but the review described these quantitative studies as 'all poor quality' would have POV issues if the surrounding paragraph, particularly the bolded bit, wasn't included. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:34, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That just means the number and all its flaws need to be placed in context (as it is now) not omitted entirely (as it was when this article received GA).
It also means the only systematic review that actually puts a number on desistance, contradicts the idea it is a "myth", so the existence of this section at all is highly questionable.
Things have changed a lot in the last 30 years. Crudely, the field has shifted from:
  • We mostly see male pre-teens who will mostly desist in adolescence, and some think its a good idea to withhold "girls" toys and "girls" clothes to "help that along"
To
  • We mostly see female teenagers with a lot of comorbid conditions like depression and eating disorders, and if we give them puberty blockers 99.5% of them don't desist
With no adequate study of the non-intervention case, no explanation of the sex-ratio shift and virtually nonexistant followup.
What we should do here is convey this uncertainty and the limitations to the reader on the relevant article (Gender dysphoria in children), not remove the information from there and present an incomplete and overly-certain picture on an article dedicated to calling it "misinformation". Void if removed (talk) 15:09, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From the review: Of the hypothesis- driven research articles pertaining to desistance found in this literature review, most were ranked as having significant risk of bias. A significantly disproportionate number of these articles were not driven by an original hypothesis. The definitions of desistance, while diverse, were all used to say that TGE children who desist will identify as cisgender after puberty, a concept based on biased research from the 1960s to 1980s and poor-quality research in the 2000s. Therefore, desistance is suggested to be removed from clinical and research discourse to focus instead on supporting TGE youth rather than attempting to predict their future gender identity.[5]
The answer to "will most kids today desist" is "we don't know". - so therefore the claim we do know they will is a myth
Things have changed a lot in the last 30 years. Crudely, the field has shifted from: We mostly see male pre-teens who will mostly desist in adolescence, and some think its a good idea to withhold "girls" toys and "girls" clothes to "help that along" - As you know, and has been repeatedly pointed out to you, the majority of those kids did not say they were trans, or that they wanted to transition, and so the to claim they "desisted" is nonsensical.
I hope whoever looks over this takes note of the fact this was already discussed at the talk page and consensus was against Void's issues with the section[6] Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:17, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, wrt Some of this section seems more overtly POV push-y but still interesting to me personally, like the sentences talking about the etymology of the word desistance and the connection to criminal recidivism. "He took the word from this other psychiatric condition, and that other psychiatric condition took the word from criminology" isn't relevant to misinformation (so it shouldn't be in this article), and it feels like a way to smear the concept.
Our systematic review of desistance makes clear it is necessary context, stating Desistance as a word has its origins in criminal research,28 and Zucker explains that he was the first person to use desistance in relation to the TGE pre-pubertal youth population in 2003 after seeing it being used for oppositional defiant disorder (ODD).29 In either case, desistance is considered a good outcome in criminal research and ODD. Acknowledging this history of the term is important as it reflects the pathologizing of gender identity (in relation to ODD) and the negative perspectives that have been associated with being TGE (in relation to crime).[7] Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 04:07, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That may be appropriate context for an article on desistance, but it says nothing about misinformation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:53, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thing is, we've made it so
desistance myth redirects to this article on misinformation and is thus bolded. So, as of now, this is the "primary article" on desistance. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:47, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
A. That PDF is a RAND corp report, which tend to be considered pretty thoroughly reliable.
B. We should care because the Cass Report makes claims and conclusions separate from those of its peer reviewed sources, and thus we need to make clear the distinction between the two with regards to peer review.
C. Does everything need to be plastered across CNN for it to be relevant to a good wikipedia article? Snokalok (talk) 12:43, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

YFNS wrote "I'm a little unsure how GAR works". Well it sure doesn't work by smearing the person who complained about NPOV violations. Personal attacks earn topic bans, not GAs. Further, they just make everyone else here think: "is that the best you've got?" Same goes for citing our article on the

Cass review
for backup on the "non peer-reviewed" claim. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. What editors have pushed elsewhere on Wikipedia does not influence whether this article is a GA. Is that the best you've got? Tewdar mentions that the best source said editors have found is a table where a column heading identifies it as non peer reviewed, and elsewhere the internet shows only activist social media and blogs repeat that claim. If that source had instead listed the half a dozen systematic reviews that are very much "the Cass Review" the column heading would be different. Is that the best you've got?

The Oxford English dictionary isn't peer reviewed. They don't send their word definitions over to Collins to be double-checked. The NHS health website isn't peer reviewed. They don't ask Kaiser Permanente to offer their opinions. It suits an activist agenda to conflate the Cass Review as a whole with the Final Report as a document, and claim it isn't peer reviewed, because people who don't know much about academic publishing or healthcare reviews think that if you tell someone this feature is missing, they might believe it was typically present and important and clearly not done this time because bigotry. But anyone who actually knows about the Cass Review knows it contains many peer reviewed publications supporting the evidence base. Saying it, as a whole, isn't peer reviewed, is a whopper. No neutral or reliable source says that. Saying the Final Report isn't peer reviewed is as dumb ass as saying a menu isn't peer reviewed. That isn't how an Independent Review chaired by an esteemed paediatrician and former president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, works. It is an activist trope and itself an example of misinformation.

Let me give an example from recent current affairs. Zelenskyy was described as a "dictator" by someone I'm sure we all regard as an unreliable source, but more than half the US voting population personally and specifically voted for to be their president. If you or I read a paragraph that said something like "After being expelled by the US president, the dictator Volodymyr Zelenskyy flew to the UK to meet their prime minister and king...." what would your reaction be? Would you think this was a neutral source reporting on world current affairs. Or would you think you'd accidentally clicked on some link to a right wing MAGA blog? Would you think the authors of that sentence had fact checking and accuracy as values, or were more of the say anything that pushes The Truth, facts are inconvenient, approach? It is a MAGA activist trope. This article is full of this kind of writing. The NPOV alarm isn't just flashing read. It is going "honk" "honk" "honk".

The approach from the get-go on this article is that misinformation in the trans debate is entirely one-sided and that it is influential, vs a neutral approach and exploring the far far the more obvious explanations for healthcare decisions that don't require an assumption that all those healthcare or legal professionals are clearly stupid and gullible. The opinion of activist authors is cited in Wiki voice throughout. For example, the claim "Misinformation has affected the decision of the United Kingdom to reduce use of puberty blockers for transgender individuals" is an extraordinary claim. We cite an opinion piece (it is clearly labelled "Perspective" in the journal). The same opinion piece is used for "Misinformation and disinformation have led to proposed and successful legislative restrictions on gender-affirming care across the United States". There's no room in the mindset of this article, that puberty blocker restrictions in the UK were a decision made after a four year independent review of the most thorough degree ever attempted, based on multiple systematic reviews, including those commissioned by the review but also every single systematic review published previously or since. The mindset of this article is that NHS Scotland are fools when their experts spent four months considering the implications of the Cass Review and carefully worked out which recommendations to adopt, including also restrictions on puberty blockers. That these professionals should have just read some American blogs and their eyes would have been opened to the "misinformation". It is an extraordinary claim. Or the more obvious explanation for why Florida went the way it did: good old fashioned conservative bigotry.

As Void and others have noted, the desistence debate is framed one-sidedly in this article. There's an equal myth that desistence doesn't exist or is vanishingly rare. The truth is we don't know and in fact when Cass' research team tried to find out, they were actively blocked from accessing adult care information that might have shed some light. There are activists who even cite the Cass Review final report as evidence that desistence is vanishingly rare, despite the report explicitly saying the evidence and the audit they discuss does not support that (or any other conclusion). The level of statistical incompetence shown by those citing the Cass Review for this purpose is frankly mind boggling. There is misuse of statistics and applying low-quality data for population group X to population group Y going on by both sides. Perhaps in 20 years time, universities will teach statistical misinformation courses citing the arguments coming from both sides in this debate.

I'm sceptical a NPOV article on trans healthcare misinformation can be written right now, what with US politics and all that. There's been a concerted effort at FRINGE and RS/N boards to ban any source that is negative of US trans activist positions or supportive of the Cass Review. Largely done by smearing the authors, rather than addressing whether they have a point. When the debate is at the level of claiming Dr Cass is a puppet of transphobic organisations, and all of NHS England and NHS Scotland have been "captured" by an anti-trans ideologically driven government of Putin levels of evil manipulation, one has to wonder where we're at. -- Colin°Talk 11:52, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The only NPOV violation you identified is whether we say the Cass Review wasn't peer-reviewed - we have an RS saying it wasn't, consensus at the Cass Review article to note that, and consensus at this article to note that.
The medical establishment in the UK has, at best, been skeptical of the government's ban on puberty blockers.[8]
As Void and others have noted, the desistence debate is framed one-sidedly in this article. There's an equal myth that desistence doesn't exist or is vanishingly rare. - Can you find sources backing that up? There are sources saying "most desist" is a myth going back years, I've seen none claiming there's an equal myth that desistence doesn't exist or is vanishingly rare
I'm sceptical a NPOV article on trans healthcare misinformation can be written right now, what with US politics and all that. - this is classic
WP:RGW, we can write a NPOV article on any topic, it just depends on setting aside our own convictions and following the sources. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:34, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
The medical establishment in the UK has, at best, been skeptical of the government's ban on puberty blockers. I'm looking at Table 2 in the source you linked. It says that most pharmacists (e.g., General Pharmaceutical Council) support the ban and clinicians ("doctors"; e.g., General Medical Council) are split 50–50. The main opposition comes from a group called "Charities and voluntary and community organisations" (e.g., Mermaids (charity)), which is not "the medical establishment". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is also not a question of whether they support the ban, but To what extent do you agree or disagree with making the arrangements in the emergency order permanent. An important difference. Void if removed (talk) 09:51, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a distinction without difference to me. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:49, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The context is interpretation of a permanent ban, vs banning pending the outcome of clinical trials. The CHM ultimately recommended the latter, ie a ban with periodic review, until the evidence base improves. Void if removed (talk) 08:47, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The context is a legislative action, which can be undone at any time in the future, for any reason or no reason. "Permanent" isn't permanent in this context. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:24, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, wrt Well it sure doesn't work by smearing the person who complained about NPOV violations. Personal attacks earn topic bans, not GAs. - I have not done a single personal attack here, merely pointed out, as others have, your DYK comments were full of personal attacks. Your first comment there included Readers of this sorry wiki article would be forgiven for thinking it was written by a really enthusiastic teenager who nobody had told NPOV was a core pillar, nor explained the difference between opinion and fact. ... this is an article clearly written by a US activist viewpoint. Ironically, it itself is an example of transgender misinformation., while your second was As I said, this article reads like a teenager wrote it as an activist pamphlet to address problems they only see from a US perspective, fighting a certain kind of US bigot and thinking the rest of the world is like that too ... This sort of subject needs to be written by editors with a commitment to NPOV, not a commitment to The Cause., and your third, after I asked you to strike your personal attacks, was YFNS, I call out this article for the one-sided activist screed it is. And you are an activist single-purpose account.[9] - you have yet to strike any of the multiple personal attacks you left there. You have also yet to raise NPOV issues on the talk page for the article itself. I quote your comments for the closer to consider in deciding who has made personal attacks. I do agree, and think you should consider, that Personal attacks earn topic bans Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:25, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The NHS health website isn't peer reviewed.

Their clinical guidelines and position statements very much are. It is
MedRS policy that we should not use non–peer-reviewed sources for biomedical information. The Cass Review is supposed to be an academic source on biomedical information; it needs to be peer-reviewed to be cited. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
Um, technically, MEDRS says no such thing (because textbooks aren't peer-reviewed either, and they're one of MEDRS's favorite sources). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:19, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My textbook's long list of reviewers misled me into thinking it was peer-reviewed...
In any case, books with academic editorial policies are the only acceptable MedRSes that aren't peer-reviewed, and the Cass Review doesn't appear to fall under these categories. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a little more complicated than that.
WP:MEDRS
wants "high-quality textbooks" and reference works with "good editorial oversight". This is a little different from "academic editorial policies", as anybody can write an editorial policy. (MEDRS itself is an example of an editorial policy.)
MEDRS also accepts "Guidelines and position statements provided by major medical and scientific organizations", which may (or might not) be peer reviewed if they are "formal scientific reports" but can also be "public guides and service announcements", which are not.
MEDRS also accepts, for uncontroversial claims, non-peer-reviewed websites such as WebMD.
"The Cass Review" seems to mean different things to different people. If you see it as "a 388-page-long pdf called 'the final report' ", then it did not undergo a pre-publication, external peer review. OTOH, neither did most of the sources published by the World Health Organization. Or that RAND Corporation pdf that keeps being recommended (which discloses that they used "internal peer review", meaning that it was written by Employee A, reviewed by Employee B, and published by their joint employer).
If "the Cass Review" instead means to you the whole thing – the people, the interviews, the multiple publications, the whole process, perhaps like the United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack isn't just its 845-page final report – then parts of the whole thing were peer reviewed (the commissioned reviews), and other parts (e.g., the people) can't be, and some of the rest theoretically could have been, but wasn't (or was only internally peer reviewed). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:31, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. The final report was unreliable for MedRS as it's not peer-reviewed, but that doesn't mean nothing from the project is MedRS; the peer-reviewed parts are. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:14, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice that this recently became a GA. Good job! Aaron Liu (talk) 13:51, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is nowhere near GA status and contains misinformation. Its central idea is that gender-affirming care, including placing children on puberty blockers, is the only acceptable treatment for gender dysphoria, while almost any critical perspective is presented as disinformation. One example, the article states: "Proponents of bans on gender-affirming care in the United States have argued that youth should receive psychotherapy, including gender exploratory therapy (GET), a form of conversion therapy, instead of medical treatments." The lead has a similar statement. However, psychotherapy and particularly exploratory therapy, is recommended as the first-line treatment by health authorities and medical organizations in several developed countries, such as the UK [10], Finland [11] and Sweden [12] Swedish guidelines recommend "offering psychosocial support for the unconditional exploration of gender identity during the diagnostic assessment." Additionally, major MEDORGs have clearly stated that exploratory therapy is not the same as conversion therapy. For example, the United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy (UKCP) states: "Exploratory therapy should not in any circumstances be confused with conversion therapy, which seeks to change or deny a person’s sexual orientation and/or gender identity." [13] The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists (RANZCP) recommends "offering psychosocial support to explore gender identity during the diagnostic assessment." [14] The article presents only one point of view, that supports medical transition, as the correct one, while dismissing gender exploratory therapy as conversion therapy, despite its endorsement by numerous medical organizations. The article lacks balance, disregarding the growing global shift toward banning or limiting puberty blockers and prioritizing psychotherapy.JonJ937 (talk) 17:28, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jonj has been repeating this claim at the Fringe Theories Noticeboard where multiple editors have pointed out his sources don't support his claims (among many other claims, such that the
gender exploratory therapy
(and has for over a year).
WPATH itself supports exploration [Health Care Providers] working with adolescents should promote supportive environments that simultaneously respect an adolescent’s affirmed gender identity and also allows the adolescent to openly explore gender needs - none of these sources are claiming, as proponents of
gender exploratory therapy
do, that identifying as trans is usually a symptom of a mental illness. All lay out in what situations gender-affirming care will be provided. Almost none even use the term "exploratory therapy" or "gender exploratory therapy".
The only one to use the term "exploratory therapy/"gender exploratory therapy" is the UKCP - the only organization to withdraw from the Memorandum of Understanding on Conversion Therapy signed by all other MEDORGs in the UK, who promptly criticized them for that decision (as did a sizeable chunk of their own membership).
The article presents only one point of view, that supports medical transition, as the correct one, while dismissing gender exploratory therapy as conversion therapy, despite its endorsement by numerous medical organizations - in short, JonJ has cited a bunch of MEDORGs that support medical transition, and don't mention "gender exploratory therapy", as evidence they support gender exploratory therapy over medical transition - this is silly at best and tendentious at worst. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:50, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources I cited mention gender exploratory therapy. While there is no universally agreed definition of this practice, it is recommended by MEDORGs and health authorities worldwide, albeit under slightly different terms. For example, the RANZCP recommends "psychosocial support to explore gender identity", while the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare advises for "psychosocial support for the unconditional exploration of gender identity". In the UK, the UKCP, a major MEDORG, holds a position aligned with general UK health policies, which prioritize psychological support over medical interventions. Only a small proportion of UKCP members have opposed their stance on gender exploratory therapy. Can we seriously claim that all these countries and MEDORGs support conversion therapy? It is not true that proponents of gender exploratory therapy claim that "identifying as trans is usually a symptom of a mental illness". None of the sources I quoted state this and I am not aware of SEGM or any MEDORG supporting exploratory therapy making such a claim. Our Wikipedia article on conversion therapy has the same NPOV issues, falsely equating gender exploratory therapy with conversion therapy and presenting the views of partisan sources as the only valid perspective, while failing to acknowledge alternative perspectives. The article under discussion here has significant neutrality problems that should not be present in a GA article. JonJ937 (talk) 11:35, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We should not confuse "psychosocial support to explore gender identity" or "psychosocial support for the unconditional exploration of gender identity" (generic terms) with
gender exploratory therapy (a specific term for a specific kind of therapy). The reason they use "slightly different terms" is that they're not recommending GET. If they wanted to recommend it, they would use its name. Lewisguile (talk) 13:34, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
I wonder if we could source a paragraph about misinformation, along the lines of "therapy to explore gender is not necessarily gender exploratory therapy". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:27, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect so. On the flip side, there are definitely papers that say exploration doesn't necessarily exclude GAC or that exploration is not always GET. E.g., Florence Ashley says "gender-affirmative approaches [...] often hold space for gender exploration and encourage individuals to explore what gender means to them", and: "Gender-exploratory therapy does not include every clinical approach that facilitates gender exploration."[1] I'm fairly sure this is an issue that has come up in other places in the literature, so there are likely other sources, and I think addressing that particular piece of misinformation would be very sensible. Lewisguile (talk) 15:20, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, how is "psychosocial support to explore gender identity" different from gender exploratory therapy? There are different terms to refer to the same practice, but there is no common definition. It is also called psychodynamic psychotherapy and according to sources, they all refer to the same practice:
Other countries are realizing this and making psychosocial treatments and/or exploratory psychotherapy a first line of treatment for gender related distress in young patients. Psychodynamic (exploratory) psychotherapy has established efficacy for a range of conditions, and has been used in youth and adults with gender dysphoria. -- Systematic reviews have consistently found that the evidence that hormonal treatment for GD leads to improved mental health is low quality. Based on these reviews, national health agencies in Sweden and Finland have adopted treatment guidelines which make psychosocial interventions such as psychodynamic psychotherapy (PP) the first line of treatment for GD. [15]
The RANZCP also states that "Psychotherapy is not conversion therapy," referring to all forms of psychotherapy they recommend. If UK's leading MEDORG such as Council for Psychotherapy does not agree that gender exploratory therapy is conversion therapy, and such therapy is recommended by heath policies in some European countries, then there is clearly no global consensus on this issue. It is not acceptable to equate GET to conversion therapy in a wiki voice while ignoring alternative viewpoints.--JonJ937 (talk) 11:25, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That still doesn't say "gender exploratory therapy", though. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:49, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reliable source which states that "exploratory psychotherapy for gender related distress" is not the same as "gender exploratory therapy"? This question was asked above by another user and no such source has been presented. JonJ937 (talk) 16:50, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are the one trying to say they are the same thing, you are the one who has to present a source agreeing that is not an editorial from quacks (here is Joanna Sinai, the author with no experience in trans healthcare, providing a webinar with Therapy First[16])
I and others have repeatedly quoted to you sources that note that GAC supports exploration. From
gender exploratory therapy the gender-affirming model of care already promotes gender identity exploration without favoring any particular identity, and individualized care. GET proponents deny this. From WPATH: [Health Care Providers] working with adolescents should promote supportive environments that simultaneously respect an adolescent’s affirmed gender identity and also allows the adolescent to openly explore gender needs Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:54, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
Exactly. Unless there are RSes that say "GET = all these other things which aren't called GET", it's
WP:OR. Lewisguile (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
I think it's more complicated than that.
If someone turns up tomorrow talking about how their new Exploratoryyay EnderGay ErapyThay (EEGET®) was totally different from Gender Exploratory Therapy (GET), even though it had all the key features (whatever reliable sources claim those features to be), then we'd still correctly call it a type of GET. We don't need an exact word-for-word match when words are synonyms.
More generally, I feel like every time this question is asked, we get a different answer. For example, editors have claimed that the Cass Review is directly promoting conversion therapy in the form of GET, even though the Cass Review does not use the name of gender exploratory therapy (or conversion therapy) to describe what they want to see happen. Then it was okay to have gender exploratory therapy (i.e., 'a therapy in which gender is explored', not GET™ itself) as long as it was client-led and non-judgmental. Now we're told that if you don't have the exact words 'gender exploratory therapy' in the source, then it's not gender exploratory therapy and the claim would be WP:OR. I don't think that our editors are being dishonest. So: Are we seeing a transition in the real world (e.g., greater differentiation between ethical and unethical approaches to talk therapy)? Are editors getting better informed about the details as time goes on? What's causing the story to change over time? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:13, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are some major differences between the two cases. Firstly, subject experts and international medical organisations have said the requirement for exploratory psychosocial approaches is tantamount to GET, and we have quoted them with attribution. Secondly, many of these RSes say that it's the requirement to undergo explorative psychotherapy as the main treatment while also denying GAC that is the problem.
E.g., this is from the section on GET at the Cass Review: the denial of gender-affirming treatment under the guise of 'exploratory therapy' has caused enormous harm to the transgender and gender diverse community and is tantamount to 'conversion' or 'reparative' therapy under another name. We attribute this and it's clear what distinguishing features they're talking about here. If RSes say similar things about these treatments, then we can certainly say so, as we have here (with attribution). There's also a difference between psychosocial support provided while exploring gender (this could include "soft" interventions like having someone to talk to, letting a child experiment with gender without judgment, as well as more involved "therapies") and mandatory psychosocial therapy as an approach to exploration (which is a treatment in itself). Both "psychosocial support to explore gender identity" and "psychosocial support for the unconditional exploration of gender identity" are subtly different uses of language. In both cases, it's psychosocial support (i.e., adjunct therapies, as well as softer forms of social support) while a person is exploring their gender and potentially receiving other treatments, as needed. Without seeing a protocol or statements otherwise, I couldn't confidently say GAC is forbidden with this approach or that these interventions are mandatory; it could be an agnostic approach that allows for all of the above. In GET, it's a primary treatment that replaces other interventions—it's not agnostic because it assumes psychosocial therapy is the first-line treatment, which makes inherent assumptions in spite of the patient's own wishes or their individual needs. Lewisguile (talk) 09:15, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Who claims that GET replaces other forms of treatment? Supporters of therapy, whether they call it "gender exploratory therapy," "exploratory therapy," or "psychosocial support for the unconditional exploration of gender identity", suggest it be the first-line treatment, not a complete replacement for other methods. For example, Therapy First states that "Psychological approaches should be the first-line treatment for gender dysphoria", and that they oppose any form of conversion therapy. [17] First line is not the same as a compete replacement of any other treatment. The UKCP, a leading MEDORG in the UK in its field of activity, explicitly states that exploratory therapy is not conversion therapy. How can we claim the opposite in a wiki voice when there is clearly no international consensus on such a claim? JonJ937 (talk) 11:15, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lewisguile, in the statement "while also denying GAC", is "GAC" (gender-affirming care) effectively synonymous with "prescribing medications"? As in, there are no forms of caring for someone and affirming their identity that don't involve prescribing drugs? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:10, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing, I'm not sure why you made that assumption from "while also denying GAC". GAC, as I understand it, does not mandate medication either as a first-line treatment or as the end result. You can always consult the RSes if you're personally unsure. Lewisguile (talk) 13:41, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
GAC does not mandate medical interventions, but what it does mandate is no significant barrier to those interventions. Likewise exploratory approaches do not mandate no medical interventions, but they do mandate some level of exploratory psychotherapy as a first line treatment. Hyperbole about "denying" care is a misrepresentation, and it is one borne of different clinical perspectives on the same patient group.
When you say undergo explorative psychotherapy as the main treatment while also denying GAC this is essentially describing the level of psychotherapeutic assessment as undertaken in the Dutch Protocol. The whole point was to restrict access to puberty blockers to those that the clinicians were most sure would benefit, until they reached an age where CSH were permitted - because historically most desisted and clinicians were never able to predict which.
When adopted in the US at Boston, this was dropped, and dropping this "gatekeeping" at GIDS once the puberty blockers trial was underway was one of the reasons they were subjected to criticism - they deviated from the protocol they were attempting to reproduce.
The affirmative model which emerged at this time is an "informed consent" model, without the gatekeeping of the Dutch Protocol. That's the chief distinction. As described by its originator, Diane Ehrensaft:
Prior treatment models have included a “wait and see if these behaviors desist” approach; prohibition of starting adolescents on cross-sex hormones until age 16 (Netherlands model)[...]. Central to the GAM is the evidence-based idea that attempting to change or contort a person’s gender does harm. Instead, the GAM defines gender health as follows: the opportunity for a child to live in the gender that feels most real and/or comfortable for the child and the ability for children to express gender without experiencing restriction, criticism, or ostracism. In the model, the role of the mental health professional is a facilitator in helping a child discover and live in their authentic gender with adequate social supports.
Proponents view stringent assessment and age barriers as attempts to "contort" or "change" an authentic expression of gender identity, but this is not a universally accepted position.
It is messy and contentious and spans lots of different clinical positions with weak and contested evidence, and introducing accusations that anything other than the affirmative approach is "conversion" is inflammatory and unhelpful. Void if removed (talk) 16:59, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Lewisguile, I asked because of what you wrote: it's the requirement to undergo explorative psychotherapy as the main treatment while also denying GAC that is the problem.
As a simple matter of logic, if it is possible to "undergo explorative psychotherapy...while also denying GAC", then that psychotherapy can't be GAC, right? Because if that psychotherapy were GAC, then it would be impossible to undergo that therapy while denying GAC.
So: Is it possible for that therapy to be GAC, and your statement was just a little confusing? Or did you mean that GAC requires prescription drugs? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:02, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Void if removed, firstly, you're still conflating vaguely defined "exploratory approaches" with GET, as the majority of RSes describe it. Secondly, your reading of what's above seems rather bad faith to me—"without restriction" doesn't mean "no assessment or exploration". The language about "facilitation" is pretty standard for modern psychological treatments, as is the stuff about avoiding "criticism or ostracism". Crucially, it says it's about "helping the child discover...their gender". How do you suppose the discovery occurs without any exploration? It doesn't say that exploration is forbidden, only that attempts to "change or contort" are.
@WhatamIdoing, you're still missing the therapy distinction of what I wrote. If someone gets CBT while being treated for MS, the CBT isn't a curative treatment for MS—it's a treatment that can be offered alongside treatment for MS and can augment that treatment. But it doesn't replace the immune therapies the person is taking. Moreover, the person with MS isn't required to undergo CBT before they get immune modifying treatments.
As part of GAC, psychological support can be offered and therapies can be offered to treat any psychological issues that need addressing. But there isn't an assumption that the treatment is curative, or the only option. It's also not a hoop you have to jump through—even if you don't need it—before exploring other options. Psychological assessment is not the same thing as psychological treatment, so not requiring psychotherapy doesn't mean not giving psychosocial support or not assessing someone. And clinicians are more than experienced enough at investigating differential diagnoses and comorbidities. It's a key part of their job. That isn't superceded by not forcing people to undergo therapies they don't need. And receiving treatments that aren't needed can be a form of iatrogenic harm—that applies equally to psychological as well as medical treatments. This will probably be my last reply on this topic, because it seems we're just not understanding each other, and it comes down to a fundemantal difference on how we're viewing even the basics of this issue, so I don't think anyone can convince the other and it's just wasting all our time.Lewisguile (talk) 22:02, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
you're still conflating vaguely defined "exploratory approaches" with GET, as the majority of RSes describe it.
No, you are repeatedly ignoring that this is not true. As I said here WPATH refer to "exploratory therapy" with reference to the Cass Review, which says "exploratory approaches" referencing Spiliadis 2019, which says "gender exploratory model", which was critiqued by Florence Ashley in 2023 as "gender exploratory therapy".
These are all the same thing. There is no such thing as "gender exploratory therapy" that is not the "exploratory approaches" described in the Cass Review. There is no source that makes this distinction, and if there was, it would not carry the weight of WPATH, which explicitly considers them the same. Void if removed (talk) 22:29, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
gender-critical beliefs are protected under the Equality Act 2010., and hopefully we can agree here that gender-critical views are fringe:

The Council of Europe has condemned gender-critical ideology, among other ideologies, and linked it to "virulent attacks on the rights of LGBTQ people" in Hungary, Poland, Russia, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and other countries.[24] UN Women has described the gender-critical movement, among other movements, as extreme anti-rights movements that employ hate propaganda and disinformation.[25][26]

As mentioned above, UKCP followed this guidance by withdrawing from the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on Conversion Therapy just because it also applied to children, and was promptly criticized for both actions by every major MedOrg in the UK and the MoU's organization. The MoU is signed by 29 associations of psychiatrists including the entire NHS. I don't see how that can't be fringe. You have no other source that claims GET is not conversion therapy, and I do not see what basis you have to put one British MedOrg's opinion over that of so many plus the World Professional Association for Transgender Health and universal agreement in systematic reviews to conclude that there is no international consensus, Aaron Liu (talk) 18:02, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
Therapy First is not a conversion group, no matter what the activists say. TF oppose conversion therapy, and simply support the therapy as the first line treatment, like it is done in many developed countries. It is a mainstream view, shared by the health authorizes of Finland, Sweden and the UK which also advise for therapy as the first line of treatment. US's HHS has recently stated that: The United Kingdom, Sweden, and Finland have recently issued restrictions on the medical interventions for children, including the use of puberty blockers and hormone treatments, and now recommend exploratory psychotherapy as a first line of treatment and reserve hormonal interventions only for exceptional cases. [18] HHS is hardly a fringe opinion. I have not seen a single reliable source stating that Sweden and Finland do not advise exploratory therapy, but something else. UKCP withdrew from the MoU due to concerns that its overly restrictive definition of conversion therapy would complicate providing appropriate therapy for children, not because they support conversion therapy. The opposition within the organization was too weak to change its position. UKCP is not alone in in their stance that exploratory psychotherapy is not conversion therapy. RANZCP also says that psychotherapy is not conversion therapy. The Australian National Association of Practising Psychiatrists (NAPP) states the same. [19] Together with health authorities in Scandinavia recommending exploration therapy as first line treatment, this shows that there is no consensus to consider exploratory therapy a conversion therapy. Otherwise, that would mean claiming health authorities in Sweden and Finland, along with other major MEDORGs, support conversion therapy, which is too far-fetched. JonJ937 (talk) 11:04, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're yet again dismissing sources that overwhelmingly say TF is a conversion group, skipping past the largest human rights organizations and various straight-news sources. TF says that transitioning should be avoided whenever possible, which is way beyond simply recommending therapy first. (And AFAIK the idea that hormone treatments for children should be reserved for exceptional cases is quite widespread and accepted.) You can't claim that the article has major sourcing issues if you provide no reason to dismiss the sources. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:36, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Exploratory therapy is recommended by health authorities and MEDORGs worldwide. The MEDORGs I quoted above explicitly state that exploratory therapy is not conversion therapy. Therefore, this Wikipedia article is inappropriately equating exploratory therapy with conversion therapy, despite the lack of scholarly consensus to support such a statement in a wiki voice. This is against WP:NPOV. When the sources diverge on a topic, we must present all existing views on the subject, not just one JonJ937 (talk) 12:23, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll concede that the difference—between the "exploration" that Therapy First pushes and recommended normal exploration that respects clients' wishes—is not very clear, and the articles mentioning GET should find a good source that talks about the differences. (Currently the only source cited for this is Mother Jones which is, well,
WP:MOTHERJONES.) As for what sources mention how the GET that TF and affiliates push think this should replace other interventions, "Demons and Imps" cites various sources about this, as does our article on Therapy First. (You're also exaggerating HHS's claims. Our article already addresses this from Transgender health care misinformation#Children are transitioned too quickly until the start of the "Impact" section.) As for the rest, I'll refer back to #c-Your_Friendly_Neighborhood_Sociologist-20250303175000-JonJ937-20250303172800. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:45, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
TF is a topic for separate discussion, but I have yet to see any statement from TF itself supporting conversion therapy. TF explicitly states that they view therapy as a first-line treatment, meaning that there can be second- and third-line treatments too. They oppose conversion therapy and use the term "exploration of gender identity" rather than GET, but it refers to the same practice. [20] Setting TF aside, as they are just one organisation among many, the key issue here is the broader claim that any form of GET constitutes conversion therapy. If there are no reliable sources showing that gender exploratory therapy means different things in different countries, then how can you unequivocally claim that GET is a form of conversion therapy? If prominent MEDORGs such as the UKCP, RANZCP, and NAPP explicitly state that GET is not conversion therapy, how can a Wikipedia article claim otherwise in a wiki voice? That would imply accusing health authorities in Sweden and Finland of endorsing conversion therapy for dysphoric individuals, which is not supported by any reliable source whatsoever. I have already addressed YFNS above and do not wish to repeat myself. The article about Conversion therapy has the same NPOV issues, as it cherry picks sources that support a particular point of view, while completely disregarding other perspectives. My concern about the inappropriate equating of GET with conversion therapy remains. We cannot make such strong claims when there is no clear scientific consensus and opinions differ significantly. JonJ937 (talk) 10:27, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing you've said that hasn't been addressed already is addressed by the following:

while gender-affirming model of care already promotes gender identity exploration without favoring any particular identity, and individualized care.[66] GET proponents deny this.[69]

Again, the only MedOrg you've listed that supports "exploratory therapy" is the UKCP (and TF even if you consider that a MedOrg), whose position on this has been extensively marginalized. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:09, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
UKCP, RANZCP and NAPP all state that exploratory therapy is not conversion therapy. Finland and Sweden recommend exploratory therapy as a first-line treatment (see HHS reference above). No one has explained why these Scandinavian countries would promote conversion therapy. My point still stands. There is no scientific consensus that exploratory therapy is conversion therapy. It is just an opinion of some sources not shared by others. JonJ937 (talk) 10:10, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, we cannot. The very first source on the
Gender exploratory therapy section is WPATH describing the NHS' interim service specification which uses language like careful therapeutic exploration and psychosocial (including psychoeducation) and psychological support and intervention as "exploratory therapy" which is tantamount to “conversion” or “reparative” therapy under another name. There is essentially no coherent thing as "gender exploratory therapy" which is not also referred to synonymously as "exploratory approaches" or "psychotherapy".Void if removed (talk) 16:13, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

References

  1. ^ Ashley F. Interrogating Gender-Exploratory Therapy. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2023 Mar;18(2):472-481. doi: 10.1177/17456916221102325. Epub 2022 Sep 6. PMID: 36068009; PMCID: PMC10018052.

General sourcing issues

A significant amount of the article depends on a handful of non-independent non-MEDRS, but these are ultimately making MEDRS claims, or at least claims about the validity of MEDRS.

These sources are:

  • "A thematic analysis of disinformation in gender-affirming healthcare bans in the United States" (McNamara, Meredithe; McLamore, Quinnehtukqut; Meade, Nicolas; Olgun, Melisa; Robinson, Henry; Alstott, Anne) - 16 citations, a social science paper, lead author engaged as expert witness in litigating against gender-affirming healthcare bans, so is not an independent source.
  • Southern Poverty Law Centre's CAPTAIN report (Cravens, R. G.; McLamore, Quinnehtukqut; Leveille, Lee; Hodges, Emerson; Wunderlich, Sophie; Bates, Lydia) - 11 citations. This is a partisan lobby group who is plaintiff in the cases mentioned above, with no noted reliability in this area and who is supposed to be used with attribution per
    WP:SPLC
    . So, again, not independent.
  • ""Demons and Imps": Misinformation and Religious Pseudoscience in State Anti-Transgender Laws" (Alstott, Anne; Olgun, Melisa; Robinson, Henry; McNamara, Meredithe) - 9 citations, a law & feminism paper, same authors as first source.

So a total of 34 citations on this article - many of which are key to the themes of misinformation and disinformation regarding medical matters - are derived from the same non-MEDRS sources, which are all non-independent.

An example of claims:

  • It relied on studies that had serious methodological flaws such as low sample sizes, outdated diagnostic frameworks that conflated gender non-conformity with transgender identity, usage of conversion therapy on the sample population, and poor definitions of desistance - these are strong claims about desistance and prior studies which require MEDRS, and the citations are all three of the above.
  • Most youth sampled in them never identified as transgender nor desired to transition, but were counted as desisting. - the sole citation for this is SPLC, unattributed, and I can't find what it refers to in the text.
  • Though every major medical organization endorses gender-affirming care, proponents of gender-affirming care bans in the United States argue the mainstream medical community is untrustworthy, ignores the evidence, and that doctors are pushing transgender youth into transition due to political ideology and disregard for their well-being. This extends to claims that standards of care and guidelines from reputable medical organizations do not reflect clinical consensus - this cites the two McNamara papers. Given that a systematic review of guidelines found eg. WPATH's SOC8 to be of low quality, and obvious differences of clinical opinion across the world, presenting criticism of alleged "clinical consensus" as "misinformation" is a strong claim indeed, and requires much better sourcing than this.
  • This has included arguments transgender youth are incapable of providing informed consent to medical transition though scientific literature demonstrates that transgender youth, including those with mental health conditions, can competently participate in decision-making - again, cites the two McNamara papers, again these are medical claims, and obviously competence is complicated, varies greatly by age and other factors, and cannot be presented in this blanket manner.
  • Though transgender people have higher rates of mental illness, there is no evidence these cause gender dysphoria and evidence suggests this is due to minority stress and discrimination experienced by transgender people. - again, cites the two McNamara papers, and this is a strong MEDRS claim, at odds with entirely valid concerns about diagnostic overshadowing. If we read the first source, it gives as an example of "misinformation" the statement: Many of the children who undergo these procedures have other psychological problems, like attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and autism. This is as true a statement as is possible to make in this area, backed up by systematic review. It isn't even controversial. The high rates of ADHD and autism in this cohort is by now well-established.

I think this article is better understood as "the strong opinions of those fighting trans healthcare bans in court in the US", and to have those presented as definitive - and globally applicable - while other opinions are "misinformation" is not really indicative of a GA. This is all based on

WP:PRIMARY, non-independent sources, often expressing opinions at odds with MEDRS, and producing their own definitions of "misinformation", which this article renders into wikivoice, making strong claims with no caveats and no balancing perspectives. Void if removed (talk) 11:44, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

For the detransition and desistence sections, I was extremely surprised to find that Care pathways of children and adolescents referred to specialist gender services: a systematic review was not used as a source.  Tewdar  12:13, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seven citations, if you're interested in the numbers...  Tewdar  12:20, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's more interesting that it isn't cited in Detransition (we do have 3 other reviews cited there though). In this article it could be construed as coatracking or OR to include it as it doesn't mention misinformation whatsoever (unless a source discussing misinformation used it). LunaHasArrived (talk) 12:42, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, one of the other companion articles is cited in the 'European nations are banning gender-affirming care' section, despite also not mentioning misinformation whatsoever. Is that OR/coatracking, then?  Tewdar  18:48, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In this case it's a miscitation. That source says nothing whatsoever about the 2023 Norwegian health investigation board and therefore shouldn't be used there. Thank you for pointing this out. LunaHasArrived (talk) 19:02, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1) It seems doubtful we need to cite that article so no issues with it being removed, it does indeed seem extraneous
2.1) That systematic review was discussed on talk - it did not actually report on desistance or even define it so it seemed useless for the desistance section
2.2) If we were going to cite it for detransition statistics, we have better sources at Detransition, but this source itself points to detransition being very rare Discontinuation of medical treatments was similar across reviewed studies. In the seven studies reporting data for puberty suppression, discontinuation ranged from no patients to 8%. ... For masculinising/feminising hormones, six studies reported discontinuation, with very low rates (0–2 individuals) reported.
So the article cited for Norway's treatment can be removed without issue, and it's unclear how/why we would cite the review as the statement Data suggests that regret and detransitioning are rare is so accepted among MEDRS (nobody's even argued it's an incorrect summary of the field) it seems superflous - though, I think there's a case for citing that review and the others at detransition to note the detransition rate is rare in this article just to avoid argument over how accepted that is Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:17, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And how about The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Urological Association, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, the American College of Physicians, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology, GLMA: Health Professionals Advancing LGBTQ+ Equality, the American Medical Association (AMA), AMA's Medical Student Section cosponsored an Endocrine Society resolution "opposing any criminal and legal penalties against patients seeking gender-affirming care, family members or guardians who support them in seeking medical care, and health care facilities and clinicians who provide gender-affirming care."? What does this add to an article about Transgender health care misinformation, exactly?  Tewdar  19:31, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's cited to an Endocrine Society statement that includes Due to widespread misinformation about medical care for transgender and gender-diverse teens, 18 states have passed laws or instituted policies banning gender-affirming care. More than 30 percent of the nation’s transgender and gender-diverse youth now live in states with gender-affirming care bans, according to the Human Rights Campaign. Some policies are even restricting transgender and gender-diverse adults’ access to care. These policies do not reflect the research landscape. and lists the major medical organizations opposing these bans (which are stated to be based on misinformation) [21] A statement on "widespread misinformation about medical care for transgender and gender-diverse teens" and the contrasting positions of MEDORGs seems fairly obviously relevant for an article about "Transgender health care misinformation" Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:37, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think Tewdar is correct about the laundry list paragraph being off topic. (For avoidance of doubt, I think the one before it seems more related to the article's subject.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:57, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Thematic" is a review paper submitted to the highly prominent Social Science & Medicine journal, published by Elsevier. (Note the "& Medicine". This is, in fact, a MedRS journal.) If I recall correctly, such review articles published in highly prominent journals are usually pretty much commissioned/invited by the journal. Regardless of that, I don't find McNamara's credentials a problem, while the journal and its peer review did not find it a problem,
Opinions (e.g. labeling, non-surveyed evaluation of importance) that were only cited to SPLC were attributed. The only time SPLC was cited alone and not attributed was for the factual information Most youth sampled in them never identified as transgender nor desired to transition, but were counted as desisting.; factual information does not fall under RSOpinion as mentioned at RSP, and thus does not need attribution (and especially not in the example I mentioned, which directly follows a sentence cited to academic consensus on certain studies having serious methodological issues).
"Demons" is indeed a problem, but it's never cited alone in the article. It can be removed if needed. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:07, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The about page says it is social science research on health, which means it is not a biomedical source, it is social sciences. The journal publishes material relevant to any aspect of health from a wide range of social science disciplines and and material relevant to the social sciences from any of the professions concerned with physical and mental health. It is peer-reviewed in a high quality journal for sure, but I don't believe it meets
WP:MEDRS
. I could be wrong, but that's my reading of it anyway. And my concern is not McNamara's credentials, it is non-independence. Relying so heavily on 3 interrelated primary sources with a vested legal interest in the subject is a problem for a GA because we should be favouring independent secondary sources.
factual information
If this is factual information, then find a better source. As it is, I can't even find where this even is in the SPLC source given. SPLC are a biased and opinionated source with no track record for reliability on biomedical subjects. You cannot use a report from the SPLC to make factual claims aimed at critiquing or "debunking" biomedical research, as is the case here.
The section on the "desistance myth" consists of:
  • A paragraph almost entirely based on these three primary sources
  • A paragraph which makes BLP claims of spreading misinformation, based on these three sources
  • A paragraph on the systematic review which found most actually desisted
Meanwhile other relevant sources which do not support this framing are omitted. Void if removed (talk) 15:47, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just for note I've just added sources which confirm the comment about children being included that never identified as transgender. This and here both talk about the problem. LunaHasArrived (talk) 16:25, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first source is an editorial, from a special issue of clinical perspectives, so is
WP:RSOPINION
.
The second is a critical commentary, so it is also
WP:RSOPINION
. It also appears in the same issue as two critical responses to the commentary which question its position:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15532739.2018.1468292
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15532739.2018.1468293
So - again - you can't establish this as "fact" in wikivoice, but actually have to explain (with attribution) the different perspectives, at which point presenting this as a definitive "myth" is no longer appropriate.
I think this is the danger of assembling a particular overly-certain POV from primary sources like this. Void if removed (talk) 17:54, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That first response notes Although we do not believe that many of our non-responders are in fact persisters, we do agree with the authors that the persistence rates may increase in studies with different inclusion criteria. The classification of GD in the Wallien and Cohen-Kettenis (Citation2008) study was indeed based on diagnostic criteria prior to DSM-5, with the possibility that some children were only gender variant in behavior. We have clearly described the characteristics of the included children (clinically referred and fulfilling childhood DSM criteria) and did not draw conclusions beyond this group, as has wrongly been done by others. The broadness of the earlier DSM criteria was also acknowledged by the American Psychiatric Association and World Health Organization. This was, among other things, a reason to tighten the diagnostic childhood criteria for DSM-5 and the proposed criteria for ICD-11. As we have stated elsewhere (Hembree et al., Citation2017; Steensma, Citation2013), we expect that future follow-up studies using the new diagnostic criteria may find higher persistence rates and hopefully shed more light on developmental routes of gender variant and transgender children. and Unlike what is suggested, we have not studied the gender identities of the children. Instead we have studied the persistence and desistence of children's distress caused by the gender incongruence they experience to the point that they seek clinical assistance.
  • So the authors of the study would in fact agree that not everyone they tracked identified as transgender
The second response linked is by conversion therapist Kenneth Zucker
The desistance review notes in Table 4 that none of the studies tracked DSM-5 diagnoses, many of the youth didn't even meet the DSM-4 threshold for diagnosis[22] Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:14, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's an interdisciplinary journal that does social science research on health. Unless they have had some scandal, I would say that they are MedRS. And regardless of that, the journal already has enough confidence in this review article's indepndence.

Relying so heavily on 3 interrelated primary sources

This is a review, a secondary source. I also don't see the relation to SPLC.

As it is, I can't even find where this even is in the SPLC source given.

it is notable that many participants in these studies were never actually diagnosed as such in the first place, being as they were “sub-threshold” (and desistance was higher among subthreshold participants)

with no track record for reliability on biomedical subjects

Fair enough.

A paragraph on the systematic review which found most actually desisted

That's an extremely poor summary of it by omission...

Meanwhile other relevant sources which do not support this framing are omitted.

What are some post-2013 sources that support your framing? Aaron Liu (talk) 00:29, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Social Science & Medicine is a quite good journal.[23] WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:03, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It absolutely is a good journal but, genuine question, is this source MEDRS? This paper is a Reflexive Thematic Analysis of Five legal filings published in a journal for social science research on health. Maybe I'm being too specific and others agree it is MEDRS, but my understanding was that social science papers like this were not. Void if removed (talk) 14:18, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of asking whether it's MEDRS, I think the first question to ask is whether it's supporting Wikipedia:Biomedical information. For example:
  • "Misinformation and disinformation about transgender health care sometimes relies on biased journalism in popular media" – not biomedical information
  • "Data suggests that regret and detransitioning are rare, with detransition often caused by factors such as societal or familiar pressure, community stigma or financial difficulties" – probably not biomedical information
  • "States in the United States have primarily relied on anecdotes to argue detransition is cause for bans on gender affirming care" – not biomedical information
  • "Detransitioner Chloe Cole has supported several such state bans as a member of the advocacy group Do No Harm" – not biomedical information
  • "It relied on studies that had serious methodological flaws such as low
    gender non-conformity with transgender identity, usage of conversion therapy
    on the sample population, and poor definitions of desistance" – probably biomedical information
  • "The myth was primarily popularized in a commentary by James Cantor in 2020, who argued based on the outdated studies that most children diagnosed with gender dysphoria will grow up to be gay and lesbian adults if denied such care" – not biomedical information
and so forth. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:32, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That supplement says causes of conditions are biomedical information. It doesn't say psychological conditions are any different. I think №2 is BioMed and "outdated" in the last one is BioMed.
That said, I see no reason social science papers on health are not MedRS. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:40, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that classifying some statements is subjective, and that different details might be classified differently. For example, "The myth was primarily popularized" is not biomedical, but "the studies were outdated" might be.
I also would not want to interpret MEDRS as saying that no other field has any relevance or right to speak to health-related subjects at all. A good economics journal may be more capable of reviewing (e.g.,) a question of short-term vs long-term costs and benefits than a biology-focused journal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:27, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should be using articles from Social Science & Medicine to support biomedical claims.  Tewdar  08:50, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As well as a shared co-author between the first two sources, the lead author is expert witness for plaintiffs (SPLC) in eg. Boe vs Marshall. Again this is about independence, and such legal/professional relationships between sources need to be taken into account.
What are some post-2013 sources that support your framing?
I am not the one suggesting a framing that the historic data showing that most desist is now misinformation. I am suggesting it is nuanced and we don't really know, with some legitimate differences of opinion in the literature, and I think the removal of discussion of this from
WP:RGW
.
The best systematic review in 2024 does not support this (it barely supports anything) and a 2024 German analysis of insurance data found high rates of desistance, heavily biased towards female teenagers. Singh et al. 2021, a retrospective study put desistance at >85% for the group who were threshold for GD, and this 2018 review says it is around 80%, citing Ristori & Steensma's 2016 review. YFNS does not like these sources, and I agree we should not fashion a definitive statement that desistance is high from primary sources, but they are peer-reviewed publications that haven't been retracted or corrected and pointing in good faith to what they say cannot be "misinformation". If the best we can do is show the different perspectives then we should do that.
If we focus only on the Karrington and Taylor et al. systematic reviews, we get:
  • Historically the rates were high but the methodology was bad and the numbers were tiny
  • Current rates are confounded by poor and inconsistent data, lack of followup, and use of puberty blockers and social transition from a young age
  • We should either stop trying to track this (Karrington), or track this better with more consistency (Taylor et al)
This entire section of this article is misplaced. It should not be on a page with this title, and in its current form serves mostly to advance as factual the opinions of SPLC and their expert witness.
On the SPLC citation, what the article says is:
  • Most youth sampled in them never identified as transgender nor desired to transition, but were counted as desisting.
And what you pulled from the source is:
  • it is notable that many participants in these studies were never actually diagnosed as such in the first place, being as they were “sub-threshold” (and desistance was higher among subthreshold participants)
Which does not support the text. Many is not most, and sub-threshold GD diagnosis is not "never identified as transgender nor desired to transition".
So the article misrepresents the source substantially.
As for the SPLC source, consider the Singh et al study above which is specifically mentioned in the SPLC report. Only a third were subthreshold for GD (so that fits with "many" but not "most"), and the difference between threshold vs subthreshold desistance was 90.2% vs 86.4%. So yes, desistance was technically higher in the threshold group, but the marginal degree of difference here is misleading the reader by omission. SPLC aren't a RS for facts on biomedical topics. Void if removed (talk) 10:09, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you were saying about the independence now. That does make a little bit of sense, but 1. out of eleven unique authors, just one author who was also accepted by an impartial judge does not seem like it would affect intellectual independence much 2. the SPLC sources can be removed now anyways (though IMO it's better for them to stay).
The 2016 review cited just aggregates the same qualitative studies—including the Singh study—that Karrington aggregates as "of all poor quality", as they did not consider outside factors (such as if participants were in supportive homes and communities) and followed up too early (instead of following up post-adolescence). These are two of the three essential criteria in the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies, which was chosen for its focus on reporting and methodology. The German insurance-data analysis similarly does not account for how much support the desisters received.
The three bullet points you have seem mostly correct. (though I do not see where you got "use of puberty blockers and social transition from a young age") While I would've asked to condense and restructure the paragraph in our WP article if I had reviewed this article for GAN, I fail to see how our WP article's paragraph misrepresents these points. Besides the doubtfully weightful indeed part about nonbinary and dynamic identities, our paragraph just restates the review's conclusion section and adds some details for your first bullet point. I also don't get your SPLC comment, as I found no association between Karrington and SPLC.
w.r.t. WPATH's difficult to interpret continuity of gender-affirming medical care needs requests: this is where the Taylor review is useful, as it talks about continuity:

Six studies reported whether hormones were continued or discontinued, all reporting either no discontinuations or one or two individuals discontinuing. [...]

In the seven studies reporting data for puberty suppression, discontinuation ranged from no patients to 8%. [...] The lack of reporting on reasons for discontinuation makes drawing conclusions problematic. Longer-term follow-up into adulthood is necessary to understand trajectories more comprehensively.

I think this clearly evinces that continuance is high while stating that the rare discontinuance is hard to interpret.
Note that this is not about discontinuance, not desistance. (Taylor strangely avoids discussing "desistance" despite mentioning it in the introduction.) Discontinuance is squarely excluded by the plurality desistance definition of "ceasing to be diagnosed w/ gender dysphoria" as not all diagnoses provide treatment. Therefore I feel like it's erroneous for you to lump Taylor or the WPATH quote under desistance discussion.
I concede that SPLC cannot cite the "most" claim. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A discontinuation rate with no time period attached is a strange thing. If the study period is short, that could be essentially meaningless. (Imagine if a new drug claimed 100% adherence, but when you looked into it, it 100% meant "for the first day", and everyone stopped on the second day.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:03, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The summarized studies for discontinuation all had different follow-up durations. (Plus the full text of the paragraph that I ellipsisfied did include the follow-up duration of one of the studies.) Aaron Liu (talk) 01:17, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't. Taylor says "In one study, a single person stopped treatment after 4 months", but knowing when a single person dropped out is not the same as "The median follow-up time for all patients was ____ years (range: x–y)".
I looked at the underlying studies. They do not provide statements about follow-up times. I didn't see numbers on patients being lost to follow-up, either. "We know for certain that one person stopped treatment after 4 months" is not the same as "We know for certain that the other 37 people continued treatment". That makes sense for the particular source (which is primarily trying to describe incoming referrals, not the patients' outcomes) but it would be important not to misrepresent this as proof that 97% of patients in this study had a lifelong trans identity. 40% of them took some form of puberty blocker, almost all of whom did so too late (i.e., after puberty was nearly or completely over). What happened to the other 57%? Did they stay on puberty blockers forever? Do the authors even know? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:40, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how you got to that conclusion. The relevant sources are No. 56--59; 56: The median duration of follow-up of people starting GnRHa and GAH at the VUmc was 4.6 years (IQR, 2.8-8.5; range, 0.7-18.9) 57 specifies a data collection range with a median start date of 14.1/16.0 AMAB/AFAB and end date of 20.2/19.2 AMAB/AFAB. 58 is the only one without a clear follow-up duration, and the review paragraph mentions that. 59's follow-up duration is quoted in the review paragraph as average 3.2 years for birth-registered females, 6.1 years for birth-registered males. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:53, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking at the sources in https://adc.bmj.com/content/109/Suppl_2/s57, in the "Six studies reported whether hormones were continued or discontinued" paragraph you quoted above. Now I wish I'd added links/quotations, because I no longer remember which one I spent the most time on. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:49, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Welp, I was looking at the second paragraph I quoted: the "In the seven studies..." one. As for the paragraph you were talking about, I don't have time to check all the sources right now, but the first one I checked (№32) says Our follow-up experience for adolescents undergoing hormone treatment for GID is 20.7 person-years (range 0–8.2 years) (however that could make sense...) Aaron Liu (talk) 03:07, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do find Karrington's cut-off for "post-adolescence" a bit weird, though. They define the the cutoff as 24 years-old as this age is the maximum age to be considered a young adult by the Federal Interagency Forum on Children and Family Statistics in the United States. Would be nice to have studies with mean follow-up past 24, but in their review, they make this seem as a criterion for discarding IMO, one of the studies having a cutoff of 23.86 years-old. The only remain failed criterion (for Davenport, Drummond et al., and Singh, at least) is the one about outside factors, and I guess there is an argument to be had about whether Karrington's position is a bit fringe since the qualitative studies on continuance weren't discounted based on that. I also feel like we should incorporate what's currently source [19] "A critical commentary on follow-up studies and “desistance” theories about transgender and gender-nonconforming children" a bit more. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:47, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Addressing sources
  • As Aaron pointed out, that's a review in a MEDRS journal. You keep bringing up the testifying argument but, to be clear, on one side you have every medical organization in the country and their representatives, on another you have Christian fundamentalist organizations. You are trying to impugn a source for opposing bans on trans healthcare, which every medical organization in the country says should be done.
  • You have, any time the SPLC has been cited about the anti-trans movement, argued vociferously to remove it. Consensus has always found against you and that
    WP:GREL
    on hate groups, like it or not.
  • Demons could be removed, but it is an academic RS by subject matter experts and the field of disinformation studies is sociological as well as medical
Addressing issues:
  • The systematic review of desistance says the same - I added the citation to the paragraph
  • That systematic review of guidelines found that most agreed with or were based on WPATH. They did not like this fact, but it nevertheless remains a fact. And it is true that every single MEDORG supports gender-affirming care, and opponents claim these organizations are ideologically captured.
  • MEDRS are overwhelmingly clear that trans youth can provide informed consent - find a source backing up and obviously competence is complicated, varies greatly by age and other factors, and cannot be presented in this blanket manner.
  • That statement is obviously true, there is in fact an RFC on it's way to a snowclose about this[24] That thing you quoted about "diagnostic overshadowing" is about "depressed trans kids are given hormones but no therapy for their depression" not "XYZ causes gender dysphoria" - it is not at all at odds with the claim Though transgender people have higher rates of mental illness, there is no evidence these cause gender dysphoria. That second part is a selective quotation, the text actually says Three documents (the Arkansas, Alabama, and Florida briefs) specifically highlight ADHD and autism as “psychological problems” or “mental health disorders.” The Alabama Brief claims that “many, if not most gender dysphoric children suffer from” these “neurocognitive difficulties” (p. 16). These documents insinuate that autism and ADHD act as “underlying causes” of gender dysphoria. However, higher diagnosis rates among TGE people do not imply that “most” TGE people are neurodivergent or that autism causes gender dysphoria. - You statement that The high rates of ADHD and autism in this cohort is by now well-established. - is not something the paper disagreed with
I think this article is better understood as "the strong opinions of those fighting trans healthcare bans in court in the US", and to have those presented as definitive - and globally applicable - while other opinions are "misinformation" is not really indicative of a GA. - Are there RS saying other things are misinformation / not misinformation?
This is all based on WP:PRIMARY, non-independent sources, often expressing opinions at odds with MEDRS, and producing their own definitions of "misinformation", which this article renders into wikivoice, making strong claims with no caveats and no balancing perspectives. - apart from all the other dubious claims here, this bit specifically: often expressing opinions at odds with MEDRS - is BS. No MEDRS have been presented contradicting any of these. I'm not sure what balancing perspectives you're referring to, if you can find RS saying "this isn't misinfo" present them. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The systematic review of desistance says the same - I added the citation to the paragraph
The only mention of "myth" in that systematic review is a citation to Zucker's "The persistence myth".
What you are doing is taking this review's criticism of poor data and applying it to the idea desistance is therefore a "myth", which this source does not say at all. So this is
WP:SYNTH. You can't just combine multiple sources like this, and use the MEDRS status of this source to bolster the "myth" claims of another source. Void if removed (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
The sentence it's cited to is It relied on studies that had serious methodological flaws such as low sample sizes, outdated diagnostic frameworks that conflated gender non-conformity with transgender identity, usage of conversion therapy on the sample population, and poor definitions of desistance
From the review: From all of these collections of studies emerged the commonly used statistic stating that ∼80% of TGE youth will desist after puberty, a statistic that has been critiqued by other works based on poor methodologic quality, the evolving understanding of gender and probable misclassification of nonbinary individuals, and the practice of attempting to dissuade youth from identifying as transgender in some of these studies. and Disappearance of GD and a change in gender identity are two concepts that, while occasionally connected, remain distinct. GD is associated with significant distress at the differences between gender and body, whereas a TGE gender identity does not require that distress. Therefore, a TGE child could still identify as TGE even if they do not experience GD. Despite having stated difference in these definitions, all the articles conflated these two ideas[25]
You said regarding the quoted article text these are strong claims about desistance and prior studies which require MEDRS and when presented with a MEDRS saying exactly that, you've shifted the goalpost
You can't have it both ways, you repeatedly argue "we don't know if most kids desist" but also that we can't say it's a myth that "we know most kids desist". Unless MEDRS actually agree "we know that most kids desist", the claim that "most kids desist" is in fact FRINGE. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:23, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I very much dont see the credibility of such NPOV claims. Its well accepted by highly respected medical orgs that trans affirming care has an astounding success rates, with 99% satisfaction rate for gender affirming surgery and HRT. And detransition is rare, according to many credible studies. Most commonly due to social pressures, not due to a changing of identities. Its highly rare phenonom when external pressures, ie discrimination, are excluded. (one such study is Turbin, Jack et al. 2021) Treating this challenge as anything but a fringe and bigotry based challenge i think would be frankly ridiculous. And I wont entertain such false equivalency/credibility when there is no such basis. -LoomCreek (talk) 01:34, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Puberty blockers were banned or limited to trials in many European countries [26] and the WHO refused to issue a guideline for children because they find that: "the evidence base for children and adolescents is limited and variable regarding the longer-term outcomes of gender affirming care for children and adolescents". That is hardly a success story. JonJ937 (talk) 11:43, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is stated in wikivoice that Detransition refers to the cessation of gender-affirming care, sourced to McNamara et al. (2024) and Wuest & Last (2023). While Wuest & Last say detransitioners (i.e., individuals who have halted GAC), and McNamara et al. write Discontinuation of GAC is sometimes called “detransition,”, the McNamara source makes clear that this is not the only definition (e.g. Most studies suggest that however detransition is defined, the percentage of people who report actual regret for GAC is very low and spend some time discussing how different definitions affect the stats. The source used in the Detransition article lede says Detransitioning refers to the process whereby people who have undergone gender transition later identify or present as the gender that was assigned to them at birth.  Tewdar  10:00, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I fixed the definition to clarify the more expansive one.[27] Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:58, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coord comment

I'm going to ask everyone in this discussion to avoid further increasing the temperature, and step away if they cannot. The subject is a hot button political issue, but that doesn't make it ok to throw attacks and insults at other editors. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:24, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the DYK nom a while back and thought of commenting on it but chose not to. My first thought was the objections to the DYK did not appear to be made in
good faith even if they were intended to be. You can't cite policy and say you merely want to see a neutral take on the arguments of both sides, then belittle one side as "teenagers" who have no idea what they're writing about and likewise label the nominator and reviewer as such. The objections only needed to touch on the coverage and sources cited, but instead it devolved into a thinly veiled attack on other editors that nobody else wanted to touch with a six-foot pole. Yue🌙 02:17, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
This has also put me off from really engaging with this thread, too. There's lots I feel I could say, but it just eats up so much time and effort. I'd rather deal with articles in the (much more civil, if no less passionately debated)
WP:PIA topic area. Lewisguile (talk) 14:25, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
This discussion is waaay more civil and calm than the GENSEX topic used to be just a couple of years ago.  Tewdar  15:03, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's more of a statement of how awful general conduct in GENSEX used to be than a ringing endorsement of how it is now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:07, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actionable items

Creating this section for the GAR coordinators to highlight which, if any, issues need to be addressed before this can be closed. Courtesy pings to @Lee Vilenski, @Iazyges, @Chipmunkdavis, @Trainsandotherthings. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:56, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to put my thumb on the scale right now, especially with the new rule that these are required to be open 1 month (which I disagree with strongly but will respect). Please let the discussion develop for now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:18, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me! 2 quick notes though
  1. )
    WP:GAR
    should be updated as it currently says GARs typically remain open for at least one month. (typically -> should/must, the page hasn't been updated in almost a year)
  2. )
    WP:GAR
    does say If discussion becomes contentious, participants may request the assistance of GAR coordinators at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. The coordinators may attempt to steer the discussion towards resolution or make a decisive close.
Best, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:42, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I am not a coord, the most critical issue here is that
reviewing instructions; as far as I am concerned, the article has not passed a proper GA review. The easiest solution would simply be closing this discussion as delist and renominating at GA; I suppose the original place in the GAN queue would be reinstated. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:20, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
Amen, and I apologise for not stating such in my original nomination statement.--Launchballer 13:25, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That was not the original review... That was the
WP:GAN/I#N5 says If your nomination has failed, you can take the reviewer's suggestions into account and renominate the article, which I did. That is not evidence of NPOV violations, which is supposedly the premise of this GA reassessment. If the coordinators think a fresh GA review is necessary, then User:IntentionallyDense has offered to do so above. I do not think that is necessary. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:57, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
@Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist I do see what others are saying, the second review shows no evidence of source spot checks or really any review. That doesn't mean the article is or isn't up to GA criteria, it just means the reviewer didn't do their job in reviewing the article. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 16:37, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LoomCreek, your review has a green tick next to "source spot check", so I'm assuming you did actually perform one, even if you didn't elucidate on it?
On the basis of
WP:AGF
, I don't think not giving enough detail is in itself evidence of an invalid review.
A new review may be the fastest route, but LoomCreek should also have a chance to defend their review here for the record, whatever else happens. Lewisguile (talk) 10:08, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Over the years, we as a community have come to expect that GA reviews are more than just a brief glance and speedy promotion to GA status. There can be no more waving people through with a cursory check in a post-Coldwell enWiki. At minimum there should be some evidence that all the GA criteria were checked. Had I been aware of how poor the GA review was, I wouldn't have stated the creation of this GAR was improper (though the nom has already stated that they should have included that in the nomination). As a nominator, I would ask for a second opinion if someone passed one of my nominations with that little feedback.
As far as I'm concerned, if someone wants to take on a full GA3, we can keep this open until that concludes, assuming a consensus to delist doesn't develop here. I'm deliberately not digging into content discussions in this article because I think someone needs to act independently here when tensions are high. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:06, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guess neither I nor anyone else here can take on the GA3? Aaron Liu (talk) 00:52, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's no formal rule against it, but if you think that other people might feel you were
WP:INVOLVED, even to a small degree, it would probably be better to let someone else do that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:58, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
@Trainsandotherthings Would I be able to just start this on the talkpage? I have purposely not given any input here and have just barely skim read this to stay neutral. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 04:27, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support this being put on hold/closed as keep and IntentionallyDense starting a GA3: Frankly, I think it is ridiculous, if not insulting or even farcical, that this was opened claiming NPOV violations without any evidence of them, based off a user leaving multiple insults at a DYK without engaging on talk like requested, and used to try and re-litigate settled content disputes where consensus was clear, and now it must procedurally stay open for 30 days where it'll evidently be a venue for forumshopping content disputes that no coordinator wants to touch with a 39.5 foot pole. The only valid reason this GAR could exist is the procedural issue the GA2 could have been too speedy (if one ignores that it was a follow-up of a thorough GA1), a factor that wasn't mentioned until a week into this GAR. I want to short-circuit this nonsense and support @IntentionallyDense's offer of a thorough and independent GA review to put this to rest. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:00, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also think that just doing another, more thorough, GAR is probably the best way to go here if there are concerns that the second GAR wasn't thorough enough. Loki (talk) 21:04, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another GA sounds good to me. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:39, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Surely it would be inappropriate for IntentionallyDense to do a GA review? He has declared himself to be not neutral by offering to do a review on the basis that someone else might fail it – implying that he won’t? [28] Sweet6970 (talk) 00:07, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a stunning misrepresentation of what he said... Frankly you should apologize for it and impugning him like that
I wouldn’t be shocked if someone takes the nomination with the intent of failing it
Nowhere does he say he wouldn't fail it, or that his motivation is somehow, as you put it, offering to do a review on the basis that someone else might fail it.
He has previously offered to do the GA2 and Loomcreek beat him to it, that's why he's offering to do a GA3. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 01:42, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sweet6970 When did I declare myself as not neutral? I think everything considered, it is completely reasonable for me to suggest that someone may go into this review with the intention to fail or pass it. I did not imply anything, do not imply things for me. If I had something to say I would have, I wouldn't have left it for someone else to imply. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 02:21, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To add: I have purposely stayed out of this conversation to stay neutral. I have no history with GENSEX. I have no skin in this game. I do not take kindly to baseless accusations of bias, especially when I have gone the extra mile to remain unbiased. I showed interest in this article before it was even a GA. I haven't even read it all the way through, I just thought it was well sourced. I also have done quite a few GAN reviews, many of which overlap with medical topics and I have an extensive history of editing medical content which means I am more likely to pick up on sourcing issues that non-medical editors overlook. If you want to dig up some dirt on me, feel free to take a look at some of my past reviews. I am very thorough, sometimes to a fault, with my reviews. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 02:26, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
someone takes the nomination with the intent of failing it means someone else taking the review with a preconceived outcome in mind, which is what Dense is trying to avoid. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:02, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ Agreed, the conduct of this so-called GA3 thus far has been increadibly disrespectful of other contributors. If there are issues to be raised, then fair enough, but as you said it certainly appears as though some are seeking to insult rather than improve or propperly engage. I can understand the issues with GA2 that some have mentioend but only to the extent that they seem to not mention, perhaps by accident, GA1. Bejakyo (talk) 01:26, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you meant in your last sentence. A thorough GA1 doesn't mean GA2 has no need to spot-check. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:03, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That might not have been clear to the GA2 reviewer, who was doing their first-ever GA review. I don't think we should blame them, even if the review is not very similar to what we usually see, and even if it gets delisted (I make no judgment either way about whether that will eventually be deemed necessary). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:25, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah this article is a tricky one to review, let alone as someone not familiar with GAN reviews. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 18:04, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed -- this GAR seems to have been inappropriately raised and conducted. I'd support this proposal. Srey Srostalk 17:31, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@IntentionallyDense: You said on YFNS’s Talk page: I wouldn’t be shocked if someone takes the nomination with the intent of failing it. whilst offering to do the review yourself. You have pre-emptively smeared anyone who takes on the review, and fails the article, as not only being biased, but as having deliberately taken on the review with the intent of failing it. This is an extraordinary accusation. Even now, you have provided no explanation for your extraordinary comment. You are assuming that anyone who fails the article in the review must be biased. The inescapable logical conclusion is that you think an ’unbiased’ reviewer must pass the article. I don’t understand how you can think you are unbiased, and a suitable editor to perform the review. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:25, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever other assumptions we might make here, let's also remember to
assume good faith. I don't think ID's edit history supports an assumption that they would treat the article particularly favourably. Lewisguile (talk) 14:09, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
AGF is a rebuttable assumption which is overridden by IntentionallyDense’s extraordinary comment, which, in itself, assumes bad faith in others, and for which he has not provided any explanation. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:23, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You believing that I did not AGF does not mean that you no longer have to AGF. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 18:05, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sweet6970 Please stop twisting my words and putting words into my mouth. I know what I said and I have given further explanation. The only people I have "smeared" (using your words not mine) are those that would go into the review with the intent of failing it. I am not accusing anyone of anything. I am simply saying that is a possibility. I have provided further explanations but I will explain it again for you: many people have expressed their opinions of this article, I have not, having reestablished strong opinions of an article may effect a review. Your inescapable logical conclusion is both very not logical and easy to escape. Not to mention, not a single person has agreed with it. Both of your comments thus far towards me have been assuming bad faith.
It would have been different if I had named names or made actual accusations about specific users, but I have not, nor did I make that comment thinking of any particular editor. I am going to advise you to drop this as I don't think you are getting anywhere with your accusations. If you have any constructive feedback about my review, feel free to mention it on the review page. 16:12, 8 March 2025 (UTC) IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 16:12, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You've already said the same thing above and you seem to be ignoring the comments that claim a different meaning to the phrase. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:31, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

Ignoring the above kerfuffles, which regrettably seem to be the inevitable result of any discussion in this topic area, we now have a simultaneous GAR and GAN open on the same article. While this is not explicitly forbidden, I think common sense leads to that conclusion; it may possibly also lead to bot malfunctions when one is closed. I would prefer to procedurally delist this article, with no prejudice as to the actual quality of this article, in the strong belief that the
GACR violations could have been introduced between the first and second reviews, and regardless, the first review could have missed things. All GA reviews should be thorough, but happily I am certain that ID is setting a really good example. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:37, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
Excellent idea.--Launchballer 10:52, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:33, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly agree, but I think it should procedural keep (with no prejudice as to the actual quality of the article) instead of a procedural delist. Either way, the GA3 will decide its eventual fate, but I'd prefer it not be delisted. My tune may be different if the GAR was started with saying the GA2 was too brief, but I don't want a drive-by GAR saying "Claims of massive WP:NPOV violations were made..." (and not noting any specific issues) to have the article delisted after a week on another issue.
I'd be reluctantly ok with a procedural delist as long as the close is really clear that the NPOV allegations were not the impetus for delisting and this was handled poorly. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 14:56, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's just really weird for a GAN to delist an article. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:37, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would be okay with this since yes the whole GAR and GAN open at the same time is odd however my only thing is, this GAR has to be open for 30 days and I'm pretty sure I'll be done my GAN by then. Also there is the issue that some may disagree with whatever conclusion I come to. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 18:31, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer to leave this open while the GA review takes place, but I'm not going to raise a huge stink if consensus is otherwise. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:44, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@
GAR coordinators: I have finished my review which can be found here: Talk:Transgender health care misinformation/GA3. I apologize for how messy everything got. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 16:17, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Transgender_health_care_misinformation/1&oldid=1280962277"