Revision as of 04:46, 21 January 2024 editDanielRigal (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users48,006 edits Undid revision 1197590710 by Senga Suna (talk) rm soapboxing without any suggestion concerning the articleTag: Undo← Previous edit | Revision as of 08:48, 5 February 2024 edit undo2407:7000:9bf1:4000:4d73:4b53:3b58:9b53 (talk) →Article published March 2023: ReplyTag: ReplyNext edit → | ||
Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
: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) | :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) | ::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 medical opinion, 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) | 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) | : Regarding "investigations reporter": . ] ]. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:black">Ol' homo.</span> 10:26, 6 April 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 08:48, 5 February 2024
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gender dysphoria article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Gender dysphoria. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Gender dysphoria at the Reference desk. |
Gender euphoria was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 12 May 2021 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Gender dysphoria. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
A fact from Gender dysphoria appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know column on 2 March 2007. A record of the entry may be seen at Misplaced Pages:Recent additions/2007/March. |
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Ideal sources for Misplaced Pages's health content are defined in the guideline Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Gender dysphoria.
|
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
Article published March 2023
It's been one month since print publication, should it not be included in this article:
- Block, Jennifer (11 March 2023). "Gender dysphoria in young people is rising—and so is professional disagreement" (PDF). The BMJ. 380 (8374): 382. doi:10.1136/bmj.p382. ISSN 0959-8138. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyxis Solitary (talk • contribs) 23:50, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
- Doesn't meet WP:MEDRS. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:11, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- (post-ec comment): Can you elaborate? Why doesn't it? Mathglot (talk) 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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 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). Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:57, 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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:34, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- (post-ec comment): Can you elaborate? Why doesn't it? Mathglot (talk) 06:15, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- The thing that immediately strikes me is that the article evokes this. 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). AbominableIntelligence (talk) 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. BreakfastSonata (talk) 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 medical opinion, it's inconvenient. 2407:7000:9BF1:4000:4D73:4B53:3B58:9B53 (talk) 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? Sandy, 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? (edit conflict) Mathglot (talk) 06:14, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- Regarding "investigations reporter": BMJ Investigations Unit. Pyxis Solitary (yak yak). Ol' homo. 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. By the way, some of what is in Society and culture now looks like it might be better placed in a History section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:01, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- Using it somewhere with attribution, at least, sounds good. Crossroads 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? Nosferattus (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- Using it somewhere with attribution, at least, sounds good. Crossroads 18:52, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-01
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 8 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Katewun (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Bsgasca.
— Assignment last updated by ACHorwitz (talk) 16:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Categories:- Misplaced Pages Did you know articles
- All unassessed articles
- C-Class psychology articles
- High-importance psychology articles
- WikiProject Psychology articles
- C-Class Gender studies articles
- Unknown-importance Gender studies articles
- WikiProject Gender studies articles
- C-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
- High-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
- WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
- C-Class medicine articles
- Mid-importance medicine articles
- C-Class psychiatry articles
- High-importance psychiatry articles
- Psychiatry task force articles
- All WikiProject Medicine pages
- C-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
- WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles
- Articles created or improved during Wiki Loves Pride 2015