Revision as of 17:37, 14 February 2024 editCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,355,202 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 6 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "C" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 5 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Psychology}}, {{WikiProject Gender studies}}, {{WikiProject Sexuality}}, {{WikiProject Medicine}}, {{WikiProject LGBT studies}}.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 07:49, 19 November 2024 edit undoCrboyer (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users48,186 edits Reverting edit(s) by 82.168.236.78 (talk) to rev. 1256782326 by SreySros: Vandalism (RW 16.1)Tags: RW Undo |
(34 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown) |
Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Talk header|archive_age=90|archive_bot=lowercase sigmabot III}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Ds/talk notice|topic=gg}} |
|
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=gg}} |
|
{{Not a forum}} |
|
{{Not a forum}} |
|
{{afd-merged-from|Gender euphoria|Gender euphoria|12 May 2021}} |
|
{{afd-merged-from|Gender euphoria|Gender euphoria|12 May 2021}} |
|
{{DYK talk|2 March|2007}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1= |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1= |
|
{{WikiProject Psychology|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject Psychology|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject Gender studies}} |
|
{{WikiProject Gender studies|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject Sexology and sexuality|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject Sexology and sexuality|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject Medicine|importance=mid|psychiatry=yes|psychiatry-imp=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject Medicine|importance=mid|psychiatry=yes|psychiatry-imp=high}} |
Line 16: |
Line 15: |
|
|archiveheader = {{tan}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{tan}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|counter = 9 |
|
|counter = 10 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 2 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 2 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
Line 27: |
Line 26: |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Guillamon et.al (source 23) == |
|
==Article published March 2023== |
|
|
It's been one month since print publication, should it not be included in this article: |
|
|
* {{cite journal|last1=Block |first1=Jennifer |title=Gender dysphoria in young people is rising—and so is professional disagreement |journal=] |date=11 March 2023 |volume=380 |issue=8374 |page=382 |url=https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/380/bmj.p382.full.pdf |doi=10.1136/bmj.p382 |issn=0959-8138}} <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 23:50, 5 April 2023 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The information under “symptoms” for this source comes from the intro/abstract of this paper and references Blanchard’s typology, which has been discredited. The information also contradicts the previous paragraph which states sexual orientation does not impact GD. ] (]) 18:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
:Doesn't meet ]. ] (]) 06:11, 6 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:: (post-ec comment): Can you elaborate? Why doesn't it? ] (]) 06:15, 6 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::It's a journalistic article written by a journalist - I don't think being published in BMJ changes that. I don't see why we would use it for any actual medical content rather than citing the relevant medical bodies directly. Maybe for some society stuff/commentary on the state of evidence so far. ] (]) 06:34, 6 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Actually not even "commentary on the state of evidence so far" I'd say since we'd want a systematic review for that (and can cite the systematic reviews she mentions directly if needed). ] (]) 06:57, 6 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:The thing that immediately strikes me is that the article evokes ]. Perhaps I'm being overly cynical, but it helps to remember that there is a whole demographic of transphobic idealogues who will happily point to "professional disagreement" in order to further their agenda - when said disagreement is irrelevant to the material facts (as with Evolution). ] (]) 18:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::100% agree with this. Block is manipulating the statistics of detransitioning and other contentious trans-related issues to make it seem much more common place than it actually is. There is clearly an agenda in mind here. I would be concerned if this was going to be used as a source for what's supposed to be a neutral article. ] (]) 12:35, 14 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:Suggest that it not be included on the grounds that, though published in a very high quality source and directly addressing current professional opinion on appropriate treatment for gender dysphoria in the young, it's inconvenient. ] (]) 08:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
BMJ is certainly highly reliable, and it seems okay to me; my only concern, is how do we treat it? It's not a study, so not a primary source, so that's a good start. But it doesn't look quite like a literature survey to me, at least not the ones I'm used to seeing, although it does have similarities. Author "Block" is listed as "investigations reporter". So, how do we characterize this? ], if you're not too busy, any thoughts about how to characterize it? Should we just copy their lead, and say, "in an investigation by BMJ, blah blah..", or just cite it, without further qualification? {{ec}} ] (]) 06:14, 6 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
: Regarding "investigations reporter": . ] ]. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:black">Ol' homo.</span> 10:26, 6 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:I haven't been overly impressed by some-such coming out of the BMJ lately, but I can't recall the specific examples. That said, if the BMJ is now engaging in "investigative journalism", my inclination is to treat it exactly as we would another high-quality source (think ''New York Times'') doing an investigative piece in medicine. It's a good source for making statements, for example, about society and culture, but not necessarily or the best for statements about biomedical fact. Attribution seems safe ... According to the BMJ Investigations Unit ... or some such. {{pb}} By the way, some of what is in Society and culture now looks like it might be better placed in a History section. ] (]) 14:01, 6 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::Using it somewhere with attribution, at least, sounds good. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 18:52, 7 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::What are we even debating? I don't see any article content proposed, just a reference. What is the reference supposed to support? ] (]) 21:07, 8 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Is this correct? == |
|
==Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-01== |
|
|
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/California_State_University_Fullerton/Gender_and_Technoculture_320-01_(Fall_2023) | assignments = ] | reviewers = ] | start_date = 2023-08-21 | end_date = 2023-12-08 }} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
About this paragraph in the introduction, does this correctly describe the stances of the referenced sources? |
|
<span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by ] (]) 16:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)</span> |
|
|
|
{{blockquote|Some researchers and transgender people argue for the <b>declassification of the condition</b> because they say the diagnosis <b>pathologizes gender variance and reinforces the binary model of gender</b>.<ref name="Karl Bryant">{{cite encyclopedia |title=Gender Dysphoria |encyclopedia=] |url=https://www.britannica.com/science/gender-dysphoria |access-date=August 16, 2018 |date=2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200418213857/https://www.britannica.com/science/gender-dysphoria |archive-date=April 18, 2020 |vauthors=Bryant K |url-status=live}}</ref> However, this declassification could carry implications for healthcare accessibility, as HRT and gender-affirming surgery could be deemed cosmetic by insurance providers, as opposed to medically necessary treatment, thereby affecting coverage.<ref name="Zack Ford">{{cite web |title=APA Revises Manual: Being Transgender is No Longer a Mental Disorder |url=http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/12/03/1271431/apa-revises-manual-being-transgender-is-no-longer-a-mental-disorder/?mobile=nc |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130202082602/http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/12/03/1271431/apa-revises-manual-being-transgender-is-no-longer-a-mental-disorder/?mobile=nc |archive-date=February 2, 2013 |access-date=April 7, 2013 |website=] |vauthors=Ford Z}}</ref>}} |
|
|
|
|
|
Are they really calling for the declassification of <b>gender dysphoria</b> or the declassification of free self identification? As gender dysphoria has lots of severe ] right? So it is unclear to me how anyone can argue that symptoms should be declassified? Is enough context given here? Are they maybe arguing this out of questioning whether the symptoms are caused by the dysphoria or by environmental factors (discrimination)? I can only really think of possible arguments to declassify gender dysphoria that would indeed lead to "implications" stated in the second sentence, that it would deemed cosmetic. |
|
|
|
|
|
So to wrap up a bit, it is not clear to me what exactly the first sentence here means with "declassification", is it an emotional argument out of activism, or is there some solid logic here? If there is solid logic, I don't see it. ] (]) 15:55, 27 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:This looks like a fair summary of the existing sources, although one is old and the other is ] so I imagine more nuanced coverage of both stances probably exists. |
|
|
:* From Britannica: {{tqb|Critics have argued that GD diagnoses continue a long-standing history of pathologizing oppressed peoples. Some argue that the diagnosis stigmatizes groups that are simply expressing variation, not pathology. Critics suggest that the diagnosis individualizes a broad cultural and social phenomenon and reinforces a binary mode of gender.}} |
|
|
:* From ThinkProgress: {{tqb|On the other hand, insurance companies have been more willing to cover the expenses associated with transition under this language, because treatment for a disorder is considered medically necessary, rather than cosmetic.}} |
|
|
:Hope this helps. –] (] • ]) 17:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::I can't speak for others, but if it helps you conceptualize the "anti-" argument, I offer the following clumsy analogy: I was born with a rare birth mark that spells out "Kick Me". I'm depressed because everyone keeps kicking me. I go to the doctor to get it removed. He says I have kick-me sad-brain disorder. He gives me antidepressants and says not to let it bother me as much when people kick me. I turn to leave. He kicks me. –] (] • ]) 17:34, 27 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::The first quote doesn't seem to establish declassification. |
|
|
::It only the seems to claim that the formulation and/or application of the current diagnosis allegedly leads to reductionisticly or even entirely wrongly labelling people with a variation-question with a pathological label (second sentence from first quote), and seems to claim that before mentioned of the current diagnosis seems to lack neutrality/objectivity, specifically failing to detect (binary) gender stereotypes. |
|
|
::So is it then correct that declassification is argued for? ] (]) 18:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::With "before mentioned" I meant "the formulation and/or application" again, not sure if there is a more compact/clear way to write that without repeating that entirely. ] (]) 18:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::@] Also, there is another implication of declassification. The sentence "People with gender dysphoria commonly identify as transgender" says "commonly", thus declassifying would also unavoidably impact people who have gender dysphoria but aren't transgender. ] (]) 20:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Which is not addressed in that paragraph.. |
|
|
:::{{blockquote|However, this declassification could carry implications for healthcare accessibility, as HRT and gender-affirming surgery could be deemed cosmetic by insurance providers, as opposed to medically necessary treatment, thereby affecting coverage.}} |
|
|
:::It doesn't even mention what the impact of declassification would be on people with gender dysphoria who aren't transgender. I know from very close experience that is seems to exist, as this page also seems to suggest/confirm. ] (]) 20:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC) |
The information under “symptoms” for this source comes from the intro/abstract of this paper and references Blanchard’s typology, which has been discredited. The information also contradicts the previous paragraph which states sexual orientation does not impact GD. Wren Armstrong (talk) 18:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
About this paragraph in the introduction, does this correctly describe the stances of the referenced sources?
So to wrap up a bit, it is not clear to me what exactly the first sentence here means with "declassification", is it an emotional argument out of activism, or is there some solid logic here? If there is solid logic, I don't see it. Wallby (talk) 15:55, 27 October 2024 (UTC)