The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a contentious topic. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator.
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization
"7th and 8th versions of the SOC took an approach that was more evidence-based." This sentence seems possibly controversial and probably should have a high quality citation to support the claim. BlueBellTree (talk) 18:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given SOC 1-6 apparently didn't have references, it's very safe to say that 7 and 8 are More evidence based, there are also sources in the body that agree following general lead citation rules. LunaHasArrived (talk) 23:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps what is meant by evidence based should also be qualified. Simply having citations does not make something evidence based in the highest sense of the phrase. Thus the sentence could be misleading. BlueBellTree (talk) 05:02, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the body of the article for the sources in the future. Generally statements in the lead are uncited but because the lead is summarising the article the sources are cited in the actual article. [1][2] These are the sources used in the article LunaHasArrived (talk) 08:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree that this is explained in the body of the article. Here is what is said in the body late on citing ref 21 and 22:
"Beginning in approximately 2010, with pushing from trans activists the WPATH began publicly advocating the depsychopathologization of transgender identities in the 7th version of the SOC."
This is not talking about what it means to be evidence based.
Also references 21 and 22 here do not have anything to do with what we are talking about:
Corneil, Trevor A.; Eisfeld, Justus H.; Botzer, Marsha (September 20, 2010). "Proposed Changes to Diagnoses Related to Gender Identity in the DSM : A World Professional Association for Transgender Health Consensus Paper Regarding the Potential Impact on Access to Health Care for Transgender Persons BlueBellTree (talk) 18:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have broken up the sentence and rephrased the point like this for more clarity according to what has been discussed above: "The 7th and 8th versions of the SOC took an approach that was more evidence-based as references were included, which had not been the case in the 1st to 6th versions."
I've already left a warning on your talk page, but a basic level of competence is required for editing wikipedia in general, and this topic area in particular, asking for citations on whether something uses references, or whether it using references means it is more evidence-based, is not meeting that standard. --Licks-rocks (talk) 20:27, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blue bell. I am shocked that you can't read the body of the article and find the sentence "the SOC 7, published in 2011, was more evidence based than previous versions" with an appropriate couple of source (the same as the ones I linked above but unfortunately we're numbered 21 and 22, instead of the 25 and 24 in the article. I still expect you to have actually clicked on the links I provided).
Neither references 21, 22, 24 or 25 say anything about how versions 7 and 8 are more evidence based than versions 1 - 6. I have taken out the last part of the sentence as it is unsubstantiated.
I suggest a high quality and relevant reference to substantiate the point; Alternatively that the topic is expanded in a paragraph in the body where it can be explained what is meant in more details and the point can be substantiated. BlueBellTree (talk) 05:11, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source 24, titled management of gender dysphoria, explicitly says that one of the many changes in soc 7 was that it was evidence based, that is exactly the sort of quote you'd be wanting. Do you not have access to the full versions of the sources? LunaHasArrived (talk) 08:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I have removed that last part of the sentence again. I have looked at reference 24 full text and do not see what you are referring to. Before writing a phrase stating that SOC7 and 8 are more evidence based than SOC 1-6, please provide a clear and high quality citation or substantiate your point in the talk. It might be better to actually write a paragraph about this subject in the body of the article. Perhaps you can include an appropriate quotation from reference 24? BlueBellTree (talk) 14:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've warned you on your talk page against edit warring. Remove that sentence again and I personally guarantee a visit to the 3RR noticeboard or ANI. The sentence mentioned is indeed there. It's fine if you struggle to find it, you're allowed to not know things, but the moment you edit the main-space article you make it everybody else's problem and that's just not cricket. I've considered quoting the alinea for you in full but honestly the source(link 21 here) is fairly short (short enough that I'd found it in under ten seconds) and it'd leave me feeling used. Enough is enough. --Licks-rocks (talk) 15:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you search "evidence based" (with the space) it turns up as the only thing. This following quote is from a list of examples of "Major changes on SOC7" :
"The document is evidence based" [the document clearly being SOC7, it is on Pg 28 and in the final paragraphs of section 3.8.1 SOC7(2011)]
I have to say if finding these quotes from academic sources is beyond you this area of Wikipedia might not be the best for you to edit (especially if your first reaction is to remove the content instead of trying to find sources to back up the content). LunaHasArrived (talk) 15:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
