Talk:Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine

New source

SPLC report is out now with a lot of coverage of SEGM [1]. Cheers. Zenomonoz (talk) 01:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi, @Zenomonoz, the source looks dubious and not neutral for several reasons.

This is an article of one organization about another organization and SPLC has a lot of criticism. Please, check below what I found on Wikipedia, Britannica and on the US government website:

• The Wikipedia page on SPLC has a lengthy section on Lawsuits and criticism against the SPLC
• Editor-in Chief of Current Affairs, an American bimonthly magazine that discusses political and cultural topics from a left-wing perspective, discusses SPLC’s deceptive approaches ([2])
• Britannica, the world's oldest continuously published encyclopaedia, states ([3]) "SPLC’s activities have long generated both widespread acclaim and ongoing political controversy. The organization has been accused of financial mismanagement, misleading fund-raising methods, and institutionalized racism. In addition it has been charged with exaggerating the threat of racism for purposes of fund-raising, of wrongfully applying the term hate group to legitimate organizations, and of promoting a left-wing "politically correct" agenda under the guise of civil rights."

Colaheed777 (talk) 06:48, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources do not need to be "neutral", whatever that should mean. Consensus about using the SPLC as a source is documented at WP:SPLC. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 13:48, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Colaheed777, no. Citing the SPLC report is acceptable. Best. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:10, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Including the SPLC's findings with contextually appropriate attribution, and citing it to the report is perfectly fine. The SPLC is a generally reliable source, particularly with regards to hate and extremist groups. From a skim, there looks to be quite a bit of content we could include here and on related articles. I'll see if I can get some time next week to see what we can use. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi, @Zenomonoz, Maddy from Celeste , Loki and Sideswipe9th. This link WP:SPLC clearly shows:The Southern Poverty Law Center is considered generally reliable on topics Related to Hate Groups and Extremism in the United States. As an advocacy group, the SPLC is a biased and opinionated source. The organization's views, especially when labeling hate groups, should be attributed per WP:RSOPINION.

Now, where on SEGM's page, the organization is defined as "hate and extremist group"? Or do you have multiple reliable sources that bring us to such a consensus? Otherwise, it is exactly, what the current consensus on SPLC says: The organization's views, especially when labeling hate groups, should be attributed per WP:RSOPINION.

And despite many controversies, I don't see SEGM is defined as "extremist hate group" as it is consisted of doctors legally certified in the US to the best of my knowledge. Are the US doctors extremists and haters now? If "yes", do you have any confirmation from the solid neutral sources (for at least two) on that in order to change the definition on the SEGM's page? If you do, let's discuss it one more time on the NPOV board and see if we find any consensus here regarding "SEGM being an extremist group of haters". Colaheed777 (talk) 17:18, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I think you've misread WP:SPLC. Hate groups, and extremism are two separate but sometimes related topics for which the SPLC is considered generally reliable. In this instance, the SPLC report is describing SEGM's activities, among several other related organisations, as part of a larger "anti-LGBTQ+ pseudoscience network". That certainly falls within the SPLC's remit of documenting hate group activities.

Now I'm pretty sure no-one here has said that we should be using this source to define SEGM as an extremist hate group. In fact, to date, no-one has yet made any specific proposals for or made any edits towards including relevant content from the report. But if I were to propose something, I would suggest starting with how the SPLC has described them as a hub within the pseudoscience network, and what their documented activities are within that network. Indirectly we're already doing this, where we mention their citations in anti-trans legislation, and positions on conversion therapy. So this would be strengthening and contextually clarifying content we've already mentioned. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:41, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed with Maddy, Zenomonoz, and Sideswipe. The SPLC is a perfectly fine source. Loki (talk) 22:28, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

• The SPLC is reliable enough to cite with attribution (though it clearly does require attribution per WP:BIASED) and is usually high-profile enough to be WP:DUE. "Hate groups" and "extremism" are separate topics; clearly the SPLC categorizes this as at least the latter and as "related to" the former (due to the connections it discusses with far-right groups.) And more generally, the argument that its RSP entry confines its usage solely to those two topics is absurd - hate groups and extremism (as potentially highly-sensitive topics, especially when the names of living people may come up) are places where particularly high-quality sources are needed; it makes no sense to say that the SPLC is a RS for those and not for anything less incisive. --Aquillion (talk) 18:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

@Void if removed please self-revert this edit. The WP:SPLC is considered generally reliable on topics related to hate groups and extremism in the United State, they are only WP:RSOPINION for views. You removed factual statements about the organization and it's affiliations, cited to an SPLC report almost entirely devoted to documenting SEGMs affiliations. I'll let others speak for themselves, but I do not think @Zenomonoz, @Maddy from Celeste, @Sideswipe9th, @LokiTheLiar, and @Aquillion meant "the SPLC is reliable for one attributed statement and nothing else". Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:49, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

You are correct. Loki (talk) 19:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

SPLC may be "generally reliable on topics relating to hate groups and extremism in the United States". However, that doesn't mean that any groups they write about are hate and extremist groups, or else SPLC are therefore reliable for any group they choose to write about, which would make the proviso redundant. Likewise, they aren't reliable for classifying what is or is not pseudoscience, or psychotherapy. It is "biased and opinionated". Its views, "especially when labeling hate groups", should be attributed.

I left in the direct quote, because it was safe by that criteria. Here are the parts I removed (which have been reverted), and why:

and specified that the relationship was strongest between SEGM, Genspect, and the Gender Exploratory Therapy Association (GETA), who shared over 24 personnel connections.

We don't really have any coverage of GETA other than this SPLC report so it seems WP:UNDUE. GETA, as far as I can tell, doesn't even have a website, and the closest I can find is https://www.therapyfirst.org/ which might be a rebranding? This seems to fall under WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Until there's unbiased coverage of GETA in a secondary source, why is it even worth mentioning? Does it even exist at this stage?

GETA is a group of therapists founded in 2021 by four SEGM members and a Genspect advisor to market what experts believe is transgender conversion therapy.

This is making very strong claims based on a single, partisan source, in a field they aren't considered reliable for, using WP:WEASEL words and given that we're talking about named or identifiable individuals here is surely a WP:BLP violation. If you're going to accuse specific people of setting up an organisation to market conversion therapy, you need a better source than this and lots of neutral independent corroboration.

All we have here is a non-notable org (GETA) which may or may not still exist, with no notable web presence set up to do something unclear, possibly set up by some people involved with SEGM and Genspect, being accused of the worst therapeutic malfeasance on the say so only of SPLC, hiding behind a completely unsubstantiated "experts believe", which is a direct quote from the SPLC report itself. It is an overly strong claim for which SPLC name no experts nor explain their reasoning, and what the cite actually says is:

While many in the network claim gender exploratory therapy is not conversion therapy, numerous SEGM, GETA, and Genspect members and studies are cited by ACPed’s ”Biological Integrity” project to support the fundamentalist Christian-inspired claim that gender is set in stone at the ”moment of fertalization“ and that conversion therapies like gender exploratory therapy are necessary to maintain the ”biological integrity” of trans and gender non-conforming people.

So SPLC acknowledge that the network says it isn't conversion therapy, but that "members and studies are cited" by other people who might actually be conversion therapy advocates, maybe, but none of that is really sourced either. This is, frankly, a derisory standard of evidence for an inflammatory claim like this.

These claims - which are about specific named individuals - need the strongest of neutral and reliable sources, not a "biased and opinionated" one operating far outside their field of expertise.

Marchiano and O'Malley are on the board of Lisa Littman's Institute for Comprehensive Gender Dysphoria Research (ICGDR). SEGM members O'Malley and Robert P. George are also advisors to the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism.

Again, this is WP:NOTEVERYTHING. This has moved on from listing the affiliations of SEGM, to listing every tiny, non-notable venture every international participant of SEGM or GENSPECT may or may not be involved in, regardless of relevance, based - again - on one primary source who is considered "generally reliable on topics relating to hate groups and extremism in the United States".

Compare to, say, the page on OpenAI, where there is significant individual crossover between various orgs, such as YCombinator. These aren't listed as affiliations. They are noted where warranted, because notable individuals have notable relationships to notable organisations, and - amazingly - move in the same circles and start multiple ventures together. In this article what we have is absolute trivia that is nowhere near WP:DUE in the way it is presented unless it is covered as affiliations of SEGM in reliable, neutral, secondary sources, which this SPLC report definitely isn't.

So, I think its probably fine to cite SPLC's basic assessment with attribution, like I did, but these additional claims should go, especially in wikivoice. Void if removed (talk) 12:57, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

If you want to go to RSN and argue the generally reliable on topics relating to hate groups and extremism in the United States doesn't apply to the anti-LGBT movement, go ahead. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:41, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I would rather you acknowledge and respond to my points in a constructive way. Void if removed (talk) 23:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

GETA, as far as I can tell, doesn't even have a website, and the closest I can find is https://www.therapyfirst.org/ which might be a rebranding? GETA rebranded to Therapy First a few days before the SPLC report was published. The former GETA Website now simply redirects to the Therapy First website.

Until there's unbiased coverage of GETA in a secondary source While the rebrand is too recent for any reliable sources to have anything under their new name, both Slate and Xtra Magazine have articles with a fair amount of indepth coverage about the organisation. That coverage also mentions the extensive links between GETA (now Therapy First) and SEGM, seemingly as a result of a large overlap in organisation memberships. Content wise, with the exception of being significantly more detailed, the SPLC report doesn't appear to substantially differ from what Slate and Xtra have published about them.

Relatedly, there is no requirement for reliable sources to be neutral. As WP:BIASED states, sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. I would add that sometimes non-neutral sources are the only possible reliable sources for information about a subject, and this is something that we see pretty often when writing about fringe and pseudoscience topics. Now given that independent scholarly sources consider gender exploratory therapy (GET) to be rebranded conversion therapy, and conversion therapy is as the article clearly states pseudoscientific, I think it makes some degree of sense that the best available sources about GETA are negative.

As for the NOTEVERYTHING claims. Fundamentally, per the SPLC report and Yale, the people involved with SEGM are heavily involved in other anti-trans organisation. As the Yale report succinctly states, the 14 core members of SEGM are "repeat players in anti-trans activities". Some of the organisations, like Genspect, are notable, and some are not. However notability is not noteworthiness. Assuming NPOV is satisfied, where we are discussing overlapping activities with another notable organisation, there is an editorial discussion that needs to be held based on the nature of the activities to figure out where that content is best placed. That might result in a paragraph in one article with a hatnote pointing at the primary section in another. Where we are discussing overlap with a non-notable but still noteworthy organisation, and where there are named individuals whose primary association in reliable sources is with SEGM, I believe that it makes sense to document it here until such time (if ever) that the currently non-notable organisation becomes notable. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:49, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Interesting - so GETA was already outdated at the time of this report? I could find very little coverage online anyway - I suspected a rebrand, but they seem barely notable.

The given "independent scholarly source" is cited by SPLC, so really this is the same source, and unfortunately other, higher quality sources don't consider exploratory therapy to be conversion therapy. See the interim Cass Review, which is a top-tier assessment of literature and best practice and does not describe it in those terms at all. See also the statement from UKCP stating that exploratory therapy should never be conflated with conversion therapy, quoting and reinforcing the interim Cass Review in the process.

An important aspect of exploratory therapy is the ability to explore the fullest range of issues that may contribute to the person seeking help. Within the interim Cass Review report, the exploratory approach is described as ‘therapeutic approaches that acknowledge the young person’s subjective gender experience, whilst also engaging in an open, curious, non-directive exploration of the meaning of a range of experiences that may connect to gender and broad self-identity’. [...] Exploratory therapy should not in any circumstances be confused with conversion therapy

There is a clear difference of opinion here, and presenting one perspective as definitively "true" with selective reliance on highly partisan sources operating outside of their field of expertise is inappropriate.

SPLC are not a reliable source for what is or is not conversion therapy vs exploratory therapy. Their opinion on this is only opinion, and even if it were notable should be attributed, not presented in wikivoice, and especially not as the basis of strong claims against named individuals, even more so ones outside the US. Void if removed (talk) 13:58, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

SPLC may be "generally reliable on topics relating to hate groups and extremism in the United States". However, that doesn't mean that any groups they write about are hate and extremist groups, or else SPLC are therefore reliable for any group they choose to write about

Hate groups and extremism are the things that the SPLC writes about. When we have a qualifier like that on a source, it's usually a source known for reporting on one particular thing, and the intent is to say that they're not necessarily a reliable source for unrelated facts, only information they're reporting on directly. So for instance, if the SPLC mentioned the medical details of a particular medication, we couldn't use them for that.

When the SPLC is reporting on a group they clearly believe is an anti-LGBT group, that's absolutely within their remit, and so they're definitely reliable for facts about SEGM per WP:RSP. Loki (talk) 02:16, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

As I said above - SPLC are not a reliable source for what is or is not conversion therapy, or what is or is not pseudoscience, they're not reliable for matters outside the US, and any hate or extremist group classifications are supposed to be attributed.

Weasel-worded unattributed statements that group X was set up to provide conversion therapy are not on. Void if removed (talk) 14:06, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

SPLC are not a reliable source for what is or is not conversion therapy

Yes they are. They're reliable as a source about topics relating to hate groups, including LGBT hate groups and their practices.

what is or is not pseudoscience

In general they wouldn't be, but in the context of LGBT hate groups and their practices they again are.

they're not reliable for matters outside the US

SEGM operates in America so I'm not sure what this objection is about.

any hate or extremist group classifications are supposed to be attributed

Yes, and we do that already by saying it's from "a report by the Southern Policy Law Center". Loki (talk) 00:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

we do that already by saying it's from "a report by the Southern Policy Law Center"

There are unattributed, wikivoice claims in the article - I took everything that was not directly attributed out, and it has been reinstated.

Eg. the following unattributed claim is made about GETA: "GETA is a group of therapists founded in 2021 by four SEGM members and a Genspect advisor to market what experts believe is transgender conversion therapy." This is WP:WEASEL and importantly is unsourced WP:WEASEL in the SPLC report as well. This statement shouldn't be here at all, and even if it were it should be a direct quote and attributed as SPLC's opinion only.

The distinction between different kinds of therapy and what is or is not legitimate is WP:MEDRS, not something that can be boldly stated in wikivoice from a single WP:PARTISAN source like this, especially where it concerns identifiable or named individuals. Void if removed (talk) 14:04, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

An opinion is different from a fact. We attribute the SPLC's opinions, and find them generally reliable for facts.

There are unattributed, wikivoice claims in the article

In your edit, you removed multiple factual statements about SEGM and it's affiliations based on your belief that SEGM is WP:RSOPINION and shouldn't be used for factual statements. This is not supported by WP:SPLC, the consensus in this discussion, or the consensus at RSN about the SPLC's use in this article. None of the statements you removed contained an opinion of the SPLC: the affiliations are plain factual statements and "gender exploratory therapy" (the chief product of the "gender exploratory therapy association") has indeed been described by experts as conversion therapy. If the SPLC said "GETA are conversion therapists" in their own voice and it was cited here in wikivoice, you might have a point, but they didn't. I strongly advise you to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

NPOVN thread

Just so people on this talk page are aware, there's a discussion about this page over at NPOVN. Loki (talk) 21:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Addition of OR

@Colaheed777, you recently added a paragraph about SEGM's conference to the text. The source you cited for the paragraph says the following about the conference:

• Recently I attended a conference in New York, hosted by Society for Evidence Based Gender Medicine (SEGM), a US-based non-profit, where I was asked to give a presentation on ‘lessons from the largest youth gender clinic in the world’ – for that’s what GIDS was
• The conference was attended by professionals from other youth gender clinics around the Western world, which – like GIDS – have also received a rapid increase in referrals.
• Dr Kaltiala was also at the SEGM conference in New York. She reported the findings of the data they had collected on how young people treated with puberty blockers and hormones had fared.

Below is the text you added, with material that is not supported by the source underlined:

• In October 2023, the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine (SEGM) held its inaugural conference titled "International Perspectives on Evidence Based Treatment for Gender Dysphoric Youth." The event included over 30 speakers from various countries including Australia, Belgium, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Among the participants was Professor Gordon Guyatt, a Distinguished University Professor in the Departments of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact at McMaster University, known for his contributions to the field of evidence-based medicine.

As the majority of the text you added is OR, I kindly ask you to self-revert. Best, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for noticing. It is not OR; I actually forgot to add two more sources about the conference. SEGM's page is a very detailed one and, while it is a primary source, there is nothing controversial in the Wikipedia article - only the facts that the conference actually happened and who the speakers were. Their names, jobs, and photos all appear in the additional source. We can use a primary source for non-controversial info, and in this case, the link supports the main article from the Telegraph very well. I also added another mention from Substack. Colaheed777 (talk) 21:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

So I've just removed this per WP:UNDUE, WP:RS, and WP:UGC. The Telegraph article originally cited appears to be an opinion piece, so we can't use it for verifying factual reporting per WP:RSOPINION. The Substack link appears to be someone's blog, so unusable per WP:UGC. And the primary source from SEGM's website does not demonstrate due weight. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Sideswipe9th!

Based on your list of WP polices, - WP:UNDUE, WP:RS, WP:UGC, and WP:RSOPINION for Telegraph, can you explain why these sources are used on the SEGM's page? To be honest I'm struggling to grasp your logic and I'm starting to think that you are inclined to publish negative information about the organization while ignoring neutral or positive. Please, explain how they are different and why you accept their presence:

https://www.advocate.com/transgender/2022/5/04/science-behind-texasalabama-anti-trans-policy-full-errors

https://wyofile.com/health-experts-gender-affirming-care-saves-lives/

https://www.vice.com/en/article/m7gg54/florida-transgender-healthcare-minors

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/06/26/cbbcs-trans-messaging-damaging-children-says-mother/

https://transsafety.network/posts/segm-uncovered/

(Self- published source with certain position - neutral? Hmm)

https://www.proquest.com/openview/eb04c9f4cd760ac4ae049756494dc649/

(Primary source interpreted differently on the page)

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/subscribe/news/1/?sourceCode=DTWEB_WRE170_a&dest=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailytelegraph.com.au%2Fnew-south-wales-education%2Fhuman-rights-video-schooling-kids-on-gender-and-sex-slammed%2Fnews-story%2F4014a096731d25b1747001e3f2273417&memtype=anonymous&mode=premium&v21=GROUPA-Segment-1-NOSCORE

https://archive.ph/on0pI

(back up)

https://floridaphoenix.com/2022/08/03/showdown-lgbtq-rights-vs-state-ban-on-transition-related-medical-care-for-trans-kids/

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/avivastahl/transgender-trans-kids-healthcare-science

https://gaycitynews.com/idaho-bans-trans-girls-sports-bars-birth-certificate-changes/

(Neutral source about the contentious topic? Seriously?)

https://anewscafe.com/2023/01/17/redding/shasta-county-threat-assessment-code-red-as-publisher-threatened-trans-students-endangered-and-gateway-board-prepares-to-hire-sketchy-superintendent/

I suggest discussing these sources per the policy you shared and explain why some of the sources (I shared earlier) are suppressed or not used correctly while the ones above are perfectly fine according to the same policies.

I'd like to open a discussion on that. Colaheed777 (talk) 23:40, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I believe you've misunderstood my comment, the policy and guideline points highlighted are for specific issues with specific sources in your edit. The content you added overall was WP:UNDUE, this is because none of the three sources used contribute towards due weight due to their own source specific issues. Though The Telegraph is considered a generally reliable source per its RSP entry, the article you cited was an opinion piece, which per WP:RSOPINION cannot be used for verification of facts, it can only be used for verification of the author's opinion. Opinion articles do not contribute towards due weight. The Substack article you linked is some person's blog, so that is not considered a reliable source per WP:UGC. Unreliable sources do not contribute to due weight. Finally the primary source, the citation to SEGM's website cannot on its own demonstrate due weight. The SEGM page could be used to support a secondary, non-opinion article citation, if one could be found and the content has due weight, but on its own it could not be used for the content you added.

Taking the sources in order:

• The Advocate is considered a reliable source, and that article is factual reporting.
• WyoFile appears to be a local news site for the state of Wyoming. It appears to have strong editorial oversight and a publicly available editorial policy. It appears to meet the criteria for WP:RS. The specific article you highlighted appears to be factual reporting.
• There's no consensus for or against the reliability of Vice per WP:VICE. We are using it via attribution though, and it seems reliable for the content that it's supporting
• That particular Telegraph article is a piece of factual reporting, and not an opinion article. The Telegraph is considered a generally reliable source per its entry on WP:RSP
• The author of the Trans Safety Network article is considered a subject matter expert per a June 2022 discussion at RSN. The use of that source in this article was previously discussed in a June 2023 discussion at RSN, and its current usage as an additional source supporting another RS seems fine.
• The ProQuest link is for a paper published in what appears to be a peer reviewed journal.
• The Daily Telegraph Australia is a reliable source, and that piece appears to be factual reporting.
• The Florida Phoenix appears to be a local news site for the state of Florida. It appears to have strong editorial oversight and a publicly available editorial policy. It appears to meet the criteria for WP:RS. The specific article you highlighted appears to be factual reporting.
• Per WP:BUZZFEEDNEWS, BuzzFeed News is considered a generally reliable source. The specific article you highlighted appears to be factual reporting.
• Gay City News was discussed previously at RSN in December 2020. My reading of the rough consensus there is that it's reliable for content within its topic area (LGBT news), though others may differ and say no consensus. The specific article you highlighted appears to be factual reporting.
• anewscafe appears to be a local news website for the state of North Carolina. Though I can't find an editorial policy on their site, it does nonetheless appear to have editorial oversight. I'm seeing use of it by other reliable sources by both The Guardian and LA Times, so it could be reliable. That said, I'm not entirely sure what it's being cited for however, and this particular article does appear to be an opinion article so it looks like it could be safely removed. Digging through the article history it may have been an orphaned reference left behind after other content was removed or reworked. Not sure.

None of the sources in your list are considered WP:UGC. With the exception of one (anewscafe) all seem valid for the content they are supporting per WP:RS. As they are all factual reporting, they contribute to WP:WEIGHT, so the content it's being used to support seems due for inclusion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:41, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

This page has several grammatical errors and missing words.

Hi, this is my first time using the talk page on Wikipedia. As said in the title, this page has several grammatical errors and missing words. It needs proofreading. Usually I would edit these things myself, but this page is protected and I am not priveleged enough to edit it.

Several examples from the current version of the page:

"SEGM is often cited in anti-transgender legislation and court cases, sometimes files court briefs." The "sometimes files court briefs" part does not make sense.

"In 2020, SEGM received a $100,000 donation from the Edward Charles Foundation and 2021 SEGM's annual revenue grew to nearly $800,000" should say "in 2021".

"cite the results of their advocacy efforts in the United Kingdom NHS and Swedish Karolinska Hospital to built momentum to restrict care for trans youth globally." I believe built should instead be in the present tense.

"In February 2023, Mike Leman spoke for the Catholic Dioceses in support of Wyoming Senate File 111, which ban gender-affirming care for minors" should instead be something more like "which aimed to ban". Apologies if I have formatted this wrong, I need to learn more about being a good Wikipedia contributor. Ilovededue (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done, thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

description of 2023 conference

I think the amount added about this content (which just seems to be Hannah Barnes self describing a day out) seems undue. At the moment it seems to need to be summarised and more sources than just Hannah Barnes. LunaHasArrived (talk) 13:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree, this is completely WP:UNDUE and fails WP:INDEPENDENT (in addition to WP:NOR). If due, it should be shortened, summarized, and supplemented with better WP:RS. Hannah Barnes was invited to speak at a SEGM conference, spoke there, and wrote about how wonderful she thinks SEGM is - we don't need a huge paragraph about her trip.

@Colaheed777, please self-revert. Analyzing the the text you added[4],

At the 2023 conference in New York organized by the SEGM, British journalist Hannah Barnes presented findings from her investigation into the Gender Identity Development Service in the UK, previously known as the largest youth gender clinic, globally. - she wrote she went there, are there any independent RS that find this due?

The event emphasized the organization's advocacy for research-supported approaches in the treatment of gender-questioning youth. - the article doesn't say this

During the conference, Riittakerttu Kaltiala shared insights from Finland, highlighting a preference for psychotherapeutic interventions over medical transitions in young people, - only part that seems possibly due, though the text needs work.

aligning with SEGM's cautious stance towards medical interventions. - This bit is WP:OR, the source doesn't say this

Per the journalist's observation, the conference highlighted the divisive nature of this issue in the United States, where professionals critical of immediate medical interventions, such as the use of puberty blockers, have faced accusations of transphobia. - This is mostly editorializing WP:OR, Barnes says In sharp contrast is the approach of the US. There, the issue is even more contentious – accusations of being ‘transphobic’ thrown around more frequently. Even clinicians who have devoted their professional lives to working in youth gender clinics and recommended patients for medical treatments can be ostracised for suggesting that puberty blockers and hormones won’t help every one of these young people. The phrase critical of immediate medical interventions is not the same as suggesting that puberty blockers and hormones won’t help every one of these young people.

This event also underscored the ongoing debate over the best practices for supporting gender-questioning children, underscoring the need for an evidence-based approach to care - this is pure WP:OR and editorializing not actually in the source. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

@Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist I won't be reverting anything as this content is neutral and independent. There are plenty of sources here where other organizations and journalists expressed their opinions here and you didn't hesitate for a second to include them. And by your quote "How SEGM is wonderful", it seems to me you are not without a bias about the company, so instead of requiring me that, I'd initiate a discussion for second opinion on the NPOV Noticeboard, where we'll again discuss this and other used source and make a comparison. Now, the question is do you want to open that discussion on the NPOV Noticeboard, or would you like me to do it? This I can definitely do for you any time. With regard, Colaheed777 (talk) 11:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

From WP:IIS: An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective. Independent sources have editorial independence (advertisers do not dictate content) and no conflicts of interest (there is no potential for personal, financial, or political gain to be made from the existence of the publication). - Barnes is writing about a conference she spoke at (which she was presumably paid for). It is not WP:INDEPENDENT. My objection is not particular to SEGM - there is no situation in which somebody speaks at an event then we let them get a paragraph of wikivoice about how good they think the event is because that fails WP:INDEPENDENT and WP:DUE. Even ignoring all that, if we pretend that Wikipedia is a PR platform where WP:INDEPENDENT and WP:DUE don't apply - the issues with WP:OR in your added text still remain.

There are plenty of sources here where other organizations and journalists expressed their opinions here and you didn't hesitate for a second to include them - are they WP:INDEPENDENT?

If you want to take this to NPOVN, be my guest, but the last two times you did [5][6][7] and the time you kept trying to add a POV tag [8] do suggest that it will end with people agreeing this fails WP:NOR, WP:INDEPENDENT, and WP:DUE. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Alright Colaheed, I'll put my hand up as the second opinion (or third or fourth or however one counts these things). I have reverted the addition. Feel free to take it to a noticeboard, even though it's not really how I'd want to be starting this month. I'll reserve the option to take it to another one myself. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Alpha3031 mentioned a prior consensus in the revert, so here's the courtesy link - I'd forgotten this very source was already discussed. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@LunaHasArrived Okay. So what do you suggest? Colaheed777 (talk) 11:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Unless you have another source, I would revert it all as I think an independent source Is necessary to prove that this event is due on the article. Even with other sources I would say it needs to be heavily summarised and take some of YNFS suggestions on board about removing OR. LunaHasArrived (talk) 12:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, the total lack of WP:INDEPENDENT / secondary coverage makes this pretty undue. Barnes, an invited speaker at the SEGM conference, obviously cannot be considered an independent source on it. --Aquillion (talk) 19:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)