Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Transgender health care misinformation 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by AirshipJungleman29 talk 09:22, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Transgender health care misinformation

(
)
Map of US state laws regarding trans healthcare access for youth as of March 8, 2025 based on data from Movement Advancement Project
Map of US state laws regarding trans healthcare access for youth as of March 8, 2025 based on data from Movement Advancement Project
Improved to Good Article status by Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:52, 16 March 2025 (UTC).

  1. The hook fact is sourced to a press release from the Endocrine Society, which means it is a self-published expert primary source.
  2. A close reading of the press release indicates that the exact wording is slightly different from the hook. It says: "Although the scientific landscape has not changed significantly, misinformation about gender-affirming care is being politicized. In the United States, 24 states have enacted laws or policies barring adolescents’ access to gender-affirming care, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. In seven states, the policies also include provisions that would prevent at least some adults over age 18 from accessing gender-affirming care."
  3. The hook fact should adhere as close as possible to the source. I wonder if you can find other secondary sources to support the current wording of the hook or if you can rewrite it for parity. Attribution might also be needed.
  4. I like the hook image, but the caption is too long, and the legend (key) is too small. I wonder if there is a way to convey this info in a brief caption
More later. Viriditas (talk) 23:50, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
@Viriditas: Thank you! My apologies for missing your reply, unsure why I never got the notification. Responding to your points
1) which means it is a self-published expert primary source - I think this characterization is innacurate. Self-published refers to things like Twitter and Medium, not statements from international medical organizations. Per WP:MEDORG/WP:MEDASSESS it's a good source and per WP:MEDDEF A primary source is one in which the authors directly participated in the research and documented their personal experiences while A secondary source summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources to provide an overview of current understanding of the topic, to make recommendations, or to combine results of several studies. Examples include ... medical guidelines or position statements published by major health organizations so this is secondary.
2) The wording was based on discussions with Starship.paint for the last DYK nom - I'm open to changing it but unsure how. The source later says Transgender and gender-diverse teenagers, their parents, and physicians should be able to determine the appropriate course of treatment. Banning evidence-based medical care based on misinformation takes away the ability of parents and patients to make informed decisions. The Endocrine Society's been consistent with saying these bans are based on misinfo, in 2023 saying 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. ... Some policies are even restricting transgender and gender-diverse adults’ access to care. These policies do not reflect the research landscape.[1] The reason the hook says trans healthcare misinfo is "one factor" is SP argued they were not taking the position these bans are always based on misinfo (I argued they were). I suggested citing the ES to say such bans are based on misinfo and another source to say how many bans exist currently, but SP said this would be SYNTH. Your call how to best reword this!
3) Per 2 I'm down to change the wording and per 1 I don't think attribution is needed. Perhaps something like U.S. states have banned gender-affirming care for minors based on transgender health care misinformation and over 20 states have implemented such bans?
4) Thanks, made it myself! Could the caption be US state laws on trans healthcare access for youth with bans marked in shades of red and shield laws marked in blue or US state laws on trans healthcare access for youth - most restrictive (dark red) to most protected (dark blue)?
Best, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:09, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for the thoughtful reply. The Endocrine Society has their clinical practice guidelines posted here and their position statements listed here. The source we are discussing is neither a clinical practice guideline nor a position statement, it is a press release. A press release is "considered a primary source, meaning they are original informants for information". WP:V, footnote 1: "Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of the content. Further examples of self-published sources include press releases..." I should note that many position statements are often posted in a journal.[2][3][4][5] To be clear, I agree with the statement in the press release that says "misinformation about gender-affirming care is being politicized", and I acknowledge that a position statement or clinical practice guideline isn't likely to deal with it, however, this topic did come up during the COVID-19 pandemic and resulted in many peer-reviewed articles about misinformation and politicization. Likewise, Meredithe McNamara has studied this closely.[6][7] I'm guessing that ES is referring to the work of McNamara et al. but in the form of a press release, this is all a bit opaque. I should note that most of the MED source guidelines say to avoid press releases, so I'm a bit confused by this. I will pass this on to someone else as I generally avoid press releases for hooks, even if I agree with them, and I think the sourcing should be tightened up a bit. Given that McNamara et al. is so prolific, this seems like it should be easy to do. Viriditas (talk) 20:16, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
@Viriditas: No problem! I don't think the ES was directly referring to McNamara et al but more so the wave of anti-trans laws. However, I did find a better source / hook if you want to consider that instead of dealing with the question of using a press release! that due to transgender health care misinformation, over 20 states in the United States have banned gender-affirming care for transgender minors since 2021? [8] Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:57, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

New reviewer requested. Viriditas (talk) 20:16, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

  • Seeing as I have a more in depth knowledge on this article, I will give it a DYK review.


General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation

Image eligibility:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: I do see the issues that the other reviewer mentioned. I can see where they are coming from but because this hook is not biomedical info it doesn't require as strict of sources. If I remember correctly, press releases can be used as RS If used cautiously. I think using a press release from a reliable society and the fact that is stating things that can be easily verified (as in the policy changes and that misinformation has played a role) makes it appropriate here. I do not think that the image is clear at 100px due to the legend. I would support this hook without the image. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 23:42, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

@IntentionallyDense: I appreciate all the time you've devoted to this, but please read WP:DYKRR: "You're not allowed to approve your own hook or article, nor may you review an article if it's a recently listed good article that you either nominated or reviewed for GA (though you can still nominate it for DYK)." Since you passed Talk:Transgender health care misinformation/GA3, we need a new reviewer. Viriditas (talk) 00:05, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
Oops I didn't know this and had reviewed DYK hooks for article I reviewed in the past. Good to know this moving forward, thank you! IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 00:41, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

New reviewer needed. Viriditas (talk) 00:05, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

About the image, could we proclaim "skill issue" and just crop the image to only a map and then make the caption "states with stricter bans are colored more red"? I'd prefer brevity, but we could also add "gender-affirming care" before "bans" and "and stronger shield laws more blue" to the end of that caption if needed. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:59, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Full review I find that the article meets all the criteria (length, recency, NPOV, sources, plagiarism, etc.) but I share concern about the image. I would not run it. I would say that misinformation is only one of many factors behind bans on GAC. Arguably, it's the same factors that cause both misinformation and bans (i.e. anti-trans bias). I think that a better supported and more interesting hook could be made from some of the more outrageous claims made by anti-trans activists. (t · c) buidhe 21:06, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

  • buidhe, a full review needs an icon showing the current status of the nomination. Please add one. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:44, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
  • What do you think of my "crop + caption" suggestion? Aaron Liu (talk) 03:54, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, I don't think that any caption of the expected briefness can sufficiently explain the coloring on the map. (t · c) buidhe 04:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
  • @Buidhe: Thank you for taking on this review! Some quick alternative hook idea, please let me know which you think is best/most promising:
  • Since there are no quotes I will have to double check the sources when I get home. Otherwise these look good to me. I did make a couple of edits to help make the hooks more concise. (t · c) buidhe 19:24, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
  • @Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist and Buidhe:I was going to promote ALT1, but I'm not sure about was used to limit the rights in the past tense. The article just says "over 100 bills under consideration in legislative bodies across the country that seek to limit the rights". Have any of these bills passed into law? If not, then the wording isn't quite right. RoySmith (talk) 19:16, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
    Not sure why that specific source was provided, but to me ALT1 can be just a paraphrase of ALT0. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:37, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
    @RoySmith: TBH I'd prefer ALT2 or 3 to 1 since 1 currently doesn't include the article title (and the misinformation about ROGD is that it exists). If doing a variation on ALT1, I think the best phrasing would be:
Relatedly, if we can turn this around in time, May 17th is the International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia and would be a good/topical day to post it! Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:51, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
Where is that stated in the article? RoySmith (talk) 18:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
Transgender health care misinformation#Social contagion and rapid onset gender dysphoria states [The CAAPS Statement] stated that "there is no evidence that ROGD aligns with the lived experiences of transgender children and adolescents" and that "the proliferation of misinformation regarding ROGD" had led to "over 100 bills under consideration in legislative bodies across the country that seek to limit the rights of transgender adolescents" predicated on ROGD's unsupported claims and CAAPS stated The proliferation of misinformation regarding ROGD is also infiltrating policy decisions. Currently [statement published 7/26/2021], there are over 100 bills under consideration in legislative bodies across the country that seek to limit the rights of transgender adolescents, many of which are predicated on the unsupported claims advanced by ROGD. Unsure if by article you meant the wiki-article or CAAPS statement so provided citations to both Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:23, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I'm still not seeing this. What is CAAPS? That's not in the article anywhere (and by "article" I mean Transgender health care misinformation). But more to the point, the proposed hook talks about the bills "citing" something, and I can't find anything that talks about "citing", so I'm not really sure what the hook is trying to say. RoySmith (talk) 20:31, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
Gotcha, my bad. CAAPS is the coalition referred to in the article as a "coalition of psychological professional bodies" which released the position statement cited in the hook.[12] I see what you mean about "citing" now, to better follow the source would you be ok with updating alt4 to that transgender health care misinformation about rapid-onset gender dysphoria was the basis of many of over 100 bills in the U.S. which sought to limit the rights of transgender youth in 2021? Alternatively, instead of "was the basis of many", "predicated many" Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:06, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I also agree with running this on 17 May. (Very popular day for date requests, as it happens.)--Launchballer 23:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Reviewer needed for alt4 and to approve 17 May date request. Kingsif (talk) 00:46, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Is it normal to propose running a DYK for an article where there is active discussion about the suitability of the sourcing on the Talk page? Sweet6970 (talk) 15:46, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Articles with questionable sourcing are nominated at DYK all the time, yeah. Whether they run or not depends on how quickly it's resolved. Kingsif (talk) 23:23, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
Deal with it at the article talk
For the record, this article was nominated in January then put on hold due to a GAR and a second GA assessment. Those promoted the article to a GA, letting this go forward. The issues with sourcing currently raised were discussed extensively during those, and the editor most vehemently arguing there are issues is relitigating complaints they made prior to and during the GAR and GA2, where consensus was against them. On their talk page, they acknowledge there is a consensus against them on multiple articles relating to trans healthcare misinformation, that they are "in a small minority" in opposing the consensuses there, and that the article in question reflects those and discussions at other noticeboards (see WP:NQP#Relevant past discussions)[13] Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 00:40, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
This is bordering on WP:STALKING, unnecessary, adds nothing to this discussion (of which I am not part and have no interest in) and is uncivil. Please strike. Void if removed (talk) 09:05, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
In reference to User:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist's comment above, the issues with sourcing currently raised were raised by me, and I don't think I'm the one accused of relitigating anything as I'd never previously engaged with this article. I did check if the specific issues I'd raised had been discussed in the GAR and they had not.
The issues I've raised relate to the second sentence of the lede, they're laid out here, and multiple editors have seen a need to change the current text or sourcing and constructively engaged in the discussion but so far (it's only been a few days) the article has not been amended. Hopefully a consensus can be found to quickly resolve them. In the meantime, I consider YFNS' comment here a quite scurrilous ad hominem against VIR and misrepresentation of the discussion. Samuelshraga (talk) 10:11, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Given that the nomination is timing out tomorrow, the above concerns raised in the new-collapsed section, and ongoing concerns regarding the article's sourcing, it unfortunately does not seem like we can run the article in its current state. It seems too unstable and it does not seem like the issues will be resolved anytime soon, especially with how heated the discussions have become. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:31, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
WP:DYKTIMEOUT: However, if a nomination timed out while it was waiting for a review or a re-review, consider reviewing the nomination rather than rejecting it. - but I'm done with this. This DYK was proposed in January, it was put on hold pending a GAR, the GAR concluded it was a GA, and now sourcing concerns by one editor are being used to justify deleting a DYK nom where none of the hooks are even related to the issues they raised and are all sourced to MEDORGs. And you double-counted the talk concerns and notification of talk concerns here as two separate issues of concerns. Frankly, this is ridiculous and I never want to deal with DYK again. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:23, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
You could also just work on the issues. Two (Vox, "rare") of the three remaining issues have solutions with consensus. These two just need to be implemented. Even without a timeout, a DYK won't continue with outstanding quality concerns. DYK is about featuring an entire article to the main page, not just the section with the hook. And I think the two concerns Naruto referred to are the one about uncertainty (the one without a solution) and the ones raised in "unsupported claims". I understand your frustration with the issues not being raised earlier but I think Naruto did the right things here. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:09, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
FWIW, User:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist, Naruto has been closing out almost every DYK that runs up against the clock, so it wasn't personal. Also, you shouldn't give up. You can still bring this to FAC and have it featured on the main page. Sometimes an overabundance of criticism can lead to better things. It's all how you look at it. All hope is not yet lost. Viriditas (talk) 22:52, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
To explain my decision here, while the guidelines do say that (and indeed, I was actually the one who raised that wording up on WT:DYKG, the "consider reviewing" aspect is new), note that the wording is "consider" rather than a prohibition against timing out unreviewed nominations. I used editor discretion here: while the nomination was indeed open and in need of a review, I looked at both the above collapsed section, the talk page, and the talk page itself, and it seemed like the issues were ongoing. Given the length of time the nomination has been open and how timing out nominations with unresolved issues is a thing, I made this regrettable decision. As Viriditas noted, it was not intended to be personal but merely a reflection of how DYK works, and I'm sorry if what happened greatly upset you. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:54, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

@Aaron Liu:, @Viriditas:, @Narutolovehinata5: - thank you all. I appreciate your messages and sympathies. I am admittedly, fairly upset this hasn't run since proposed in January, having passed 2 trans/LGBT holidays I tried to run it on on the way. To better explain my frustration with the DYK process, I just get the feeling that no matter how many times I run it, somebody will complain and it will be cancelled. The first DYK was cancelled because somebody left walls of text insulting me, refused to take any issues to talk or provide RS, and that caused a stressful GAR/GA2. That certified it a GA and I thought I was done. Here, concerns unrelated to the hook shot down the review. I appreciate the encouragement to address any issues and try again, but it's just too stressful. GENSEX is a CTOP and this particular article, as you can imagine, is a magnet for disagreement (ranging from valid good points to good faith bad takes to straight up bigotry that's caused editors to get indeffed). There will most likely never be a point the article doesn't have concerns raised on talk, or that reviewers won't dread touching it which is, tbh, probably better for their mental health. I've frankly got enough to worry about between work, other articles, and the rise of fascism to put any more effort into a DYK hook for this - though I'd support anyone who wanted to (and recommend ALT4 as the CAAPS statement is very direct top tier MEDRS). I've nothing against the DYK regulars and appreciate the work y'all do and don't think this is a DYK problem, GENSEX is just cursed in these times. Best regards,Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:24, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Transgender_health_care_misinformation_2&oldid=1291138100"