Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Planck mythology

For the past few years, about once a month somebody tries to argue that the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine isn't WP:FRINGE and won't drop the stick. I'd like outside input here and a centralized FTN thread to point to. NPOVN has found it FRINGE[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_109#Society_for_Evidence-Based_Gender_Medicine] and RSN has found {{tq|It is fairly clear from this discussion that this advocacy organisation is not reliable for facts about transgender topics (including medical topics), or such is the consensus here.}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_393#Society_for_Evidence-Based_Gender_Medicine] This organization has been classified as a hate group by the SPLC (who describe it as the "hub" of anti-LGBT misinformation), described as outside the medical mainstream by the Endocrine Society's spokesperson, and explicitly described as fringe in peer reviewed literature on misinformation. The American Academy of Pediatrics won't host their panels. It's members frequently support trans healthcare bans in court including ones effecting adults (opposed by every major medical organization in the US), co-author papers with members of pro-conversion therapy christian fundamentalist organizations such as the American College of Pediatricians, and claims kids are catching trans from the internet en masse. It opposed bans on conversion therapy for trans people and argues that conversion therapy only applies to LGB not trans people (a position contradicted by every medical org in the world). Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1741557672}}

Is the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine a WP:FRINGE organization? Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:52, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
(Per this discussion with FactOrOpinion[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Your_Friendly_Neighborhood_Sociologist&curid=69593493&diff=1274285431&oldid=1274209765], I'll that the clarifying statement that by "WP:FRINGE organization," I mean an organization that only exists to promote FRINGE viewpoints about trans healthcare and whose members generally promote FRINGE viewpoints.) Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:33, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• Obviously FRINGE per the above. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
• :I’m concerned that fringe is a term that can be easily abused against organizations on Wikipedia by those with opposing viewpoints. Some of the sources that say SEGM’s fringe have a conflict of interest or said it a while ago when SEGM was new to the field. As of today, given that McMaster University, a powerhouse in evidence-based medicine, has taken research agreements with SEGM, and three systematic reviews so far have been published in major medical journals, they cannot be considered fringe. BlueBellTree (talk) 13:26, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::NOT Fringe BlueBellTree (talk) 13:26, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::This is the second time you've repeated this claim about McMaster University but, as I said before, the University website and Google itself have no information on this supposed research agreement. Do you have evidence it exists? Simonm223 (talk) 13:28, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::::It might be called a "research agreement," but it's really a funding agreement for sponsored research. For example: "Funding This work was commissioned by the Society for Evidence-based Gender Medicine (SEGM), the sponsor, and McMaster University. This systematic review is part of a large research project funded through a research agreement between the Society for Evidence-based Gender Medicine (SEGM), the sponsor, and McMaster University. None of the team members received financial compensation directly from SEGM to conduct this systematic review and meta-analysis." ([https://adc.bmj.com/content/early/2025/01/29/archdischild-2024-327909 source]) FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
• :@Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist, a question: why are you asking this? Specifically: what are the implications for WP content if the consensus is "yes"? (For example, the SEGM article already has statements about them having been characterized as a "fringe medical association," so your RfC doesn't seem to be about the content of the SEGM article.) FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:04, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::SEGM publishes a lot of material advocating their political positions and therefore is relatively frequently used as a source, especially by WP:PROFRINGE people or people who just did one Google search to gather sources. Loki (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::Are you saying that the RfC's purpose is to deprecate them as a source? If so, then the RfC should say that and should be advertised at RSN. Is there any additional purpose for the RfC? FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:32, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

• Obviously FRINGE per above. Also, multiple sources have identified it for creating misinfo, including SPLC, [https://www.splcenter.org/resources/reports/disinformation/], Vice News [https://www.vice.com/en/article/florida-transgender-healthcare-minors/]/

:* SPLC has classified it as a hate org as well. [https://www.thepinknews.com/2024/06/10/anti-trans-organisations-hate-groups-southern-poverty-law-center/]

:*Other sources have called them "conspiratorial" and "biased", with the doctors who are part of SEGM pushing other fringe ideas such as antivax movements and anti-abortion ideas. [https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2024/11/conspiratorial-and-biased-doctors-will-argue-against-gender-affirming-care-to-the-supreme-court/][https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/nov/21/supreme-court-trans-rights-doctors-testimonies-bias]

:also, if we are doing this RFC-like bolding, should we consider making an actual RFC and notifying WP:RSN? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:06, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

::I really hate that Pink would have a whole story about an SPLC piece and refuse to ever actually link to it. GMG^talk 12:13, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

• Yes, It's just blatantly a FRINGE group. Not sure how there's even an argument here. Silverseren^C 21:17, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
• They're transparently a group whose purpose is to advocate for WP:FRINGE theories. Loki (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

:: If it wasn't clear before that means my !vote is that they are obviously fringe, though I think this was a clear enough conclusion last time that I'm not sure we really need an RFC for it. Loki (talk) 23:22, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

• Absolutely fringe. Looking to SEGM for opinion about trans people is like looking to the KKK for opnions on desegregation. Per the SPLC designation. Simonm223 (talk) 21:41, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
• No Organisations that get [https://adc.bmj.com/content/early/2025/01/24/archdischild-2024-327921 multiple] [https://adc.bmj.com/content/early/2025/01/29/archdischild-2024-327909 systematic reviews] published in the BMJ, co-authored by Gordon Guyatt are not WP:FRINGE. Nor is the the NHS for that matter. Nor is the Cass Review, which you raised last year reciting all these same arguments.

:Further past discussions where anyone can read the actual evidence presented, including the criticism of those non-independent sources. Void if removed (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

::1) They funded the reviews, but none of the authors are SEGM members. Having money != not fringe. 2) Lokis NHS comment was irrelevant. 3) See Cass Review#Criticisms, but that thread also wasn't about SEGM so irrelevant.

::Care to comment on if it's fringe to co-author papers with the fundamentalist American College of Pediatricians and claim conversion therapy doesn't apply to gender identity? Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:40, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

::Every single point made by YFNS in the opening of this RFC is specious, exaggerated, misrepresentation or arguable. YFNS is aware of the counter arguments, but chose to mention none of them.

::* {{tq | This organization has been classified as a hate group by the SPLC (who describe it as the "hub" of anti-LGBT misinformation)}}

::SPLC are non-independent, as they are a plaintiff in cases where SEGM have appeared as expert witnesses for the defence. They have a vested interest in this. Additionally, they are partisan, and not reliable on biomedical matters.

::* {{tq | described as outside the medical mainstream by the Endocrine Society's spokesperson}}

::The endocrine society's guidelines were [https://adc.bmj.com/content/109/Suppl_2/s65 singled out for criticism by the Cass review]. This MEDRS states: {{tq | Most clinical guidance lacks an evidence-based approach and provides limited information about how recommendations were developed. The WPATH and Endocrine Society international guidelines, which like other guidance lack developmental rigour and transparency have, until recently, dominated the development of other guidelines. Healthcare professionals should consider the lack of quality and independence of available guidance when utilising this for practice}}

::* {{tq | and explicitly described as fringe in peer reviewed literature on misinformation}}

::The peer-reviewed paper YFNS does not cite [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277953623008900 is a sociology paper], ie not MEDRS.

::* {{tq | co-author papers with members of pro-conversion therapy christian fundamentalist organizations such as the American College of Pediatricians}}

::I think the basis of this particular claim is that Will Malone once cosigned a letter to the editor with two members of AcPeds, about 4 years ago. (Edit - [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30476120/ Actually it was 2019])

::* {{tq | and claims kids are catching trans from the internet en masse}}

::No matter that YFNS thinks this is misinformation, social contagion is taken seriously by MEDRS, and is not fringe.

:: [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10875134/ The European Academy of Paediatrics] stated: {{quote frame | The argument, initially emerging from interviews with parents of transgender youths, effectively runs that a social contagion fuelled by social media leads to peer group-GD, reflecting a social coping mechanism for other issues. The polarisation of the subsequent debate will be familiar to all, with many experts and scientific bodies critical of the research and concept. However, others recognise the need to thoroughly investigate one of the few offered explanations for the recent demographic changes.}} ie, this is an open question. There's legitimate debate on this in MEDRs, so not WP:FRINGE.

::* {{tq | It opposed bans on conversion therapy for trans people}}

::It opposes bans that don't clearly distinguish between coercive conversion therapy and exploratory therapy, something which the Cass Review described saying {{tq | It is harmful to equate this approach to conversion therapy as it may prevent young people from getting the emotional support they deserve. }}, which YFNS and several other of the voters here argued against including on the relevant page. Many clinicians also have concerns about this, something also noted in the Cass Review {{tq | some medics were afraid of being accused of conducting “conversion therapy if, again, they take a cautious or exploratory approach”}}. This is not a WP:FRINGE position.

::* {{tq | and argues that conversion therapy only applies to LGB not trans people (a position contradicted by every medical org in the world). }}

::[https://sencanada.ca/content/sen/committee/432/LCJC/Briefs/2021-05-07_LCJC_C-6_Brief_SEGM_e.pdf This misrepresents a submission] to Canadian Bill C-16 by Roberto D'Angelo explaining the historical context of the term "conversion therapy" and that none of that discredited practice was in use:

::{{quote frame | Using the term “conversion therapy” in the context of gender dysphoria is not only misleading but also inaccurate. “Conversion therapy” refers to an ideological and, historically, religiously motivated effort to “convert” lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals to become heterosexual. Conversion therapy has not been practiced or supported in any domain of Canada’s health system for at least 30 years in relation to LGB individuals. To suggest that this practice is being applied to gender-questioning youth is erroneous and will only serve to further inflame the already highly politicized field of transgender medicine. In young people, gender dysphoria arises from a wide range of causes, often in complex developmental and family contexts (Churcher Clarke & Spiliadis, 2019; D’Angelo, 2020). Should Bill C-6 pass as written, it will effectively make it illegal to consider the role of developmental, family, and mental health issues in generating or contributing to a young person’s gender dysphoria. There is a very real risk that all forms of supportive and explorative psychotherapies for young patients who present with gender dysphoria will be classified as “conversion”. }}

:: [https://jme.bmj.com/content/medethics/early/2023/11/17/jme-2023-109282.full.pdf He has made similar statements in peer-reviewed journals, which is not FRINGE.]

::Which is, again, all in line with perspectives on exploratory psychotherapy in the Cass Review, which is not FRINGE. Void if removed (talk) 22:57, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Reply is in discussion section. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:35, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

:::The Cass Review Final Report is WP:SPS and (intentionally) non-expert opinion. The Cass Review Final Report =/= its systematic reviews. It isn't WP:MEDRS according to the definition given at that article: {{tq|Ideal sources for biomedical material include (1) literature reviews or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published secondary sources (such as reputable medical journals), (2) recognised standard textbooks by experts in a field, or (3) medical guidelines and position statements from national or international expert bodies.}} It isn't published by a third party. It isn't a textbook by an expert. It isn't a guideline or position statement from a national or intentional body. Lewisguile (talk) 14:06, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

::Responding to what some voters are saying - the systematic reviews are not just funded, SEGM are listed as collaborators, with extensive mention in the conflicts of interest. My experience is that YFNS considers any MEDRS where anyone connected to SEGM is a co-author to be unusable FRINGE.

::So that includes, off the top of my head:

::https://mentalhealth.bmj.com/content/27/1/e300940

::https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/10398562241276335 Void if removed (talk) 00:15, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

:::I have never commented on either of those examples but neither are MEDRS... The first is a WP:MEDPRIMARY source, not the kind of secondary systematic review or clinical practice guideline that qualifies as MEDRS. The second is even worse. It's a primary piece, where the authors give their opinions on why prominent WP:MEDORGS are wrong, where almost every author explicitly says they are affiliated with SEGM or Genspect. Some have also campaigned in favor of gender-affirming care bans, other against conversion therapy bans.

:::One thing SEGM has been called out for, as we note in their article, is they heavily rely on writing letters to the editor and primary pieces to make claims that couldn't survive in a review. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 00:38, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

::Andrew Wakefield got published (and eventually retracted for obvious reasons) in the Lancet, doesn't make him not fringe. MiasmaEternal☎ 01:33, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

• Yes, they are a fringe organization. When it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, is classified by the SPLC as a disinformation-spreading duck.... XOR'easter (talk) 22:21, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
• Yes, they're clearly committed to pushing a fringe perspective per the massive amounts of external coverage to that effect described above. The argument that they've had things published and are therefore not fringe is flawed in several ways. First, even a fringe organization can sometimes publish non-fringe stuff (the "but your honor, look at all the people my client didn't stab!" defense); this is not enough to save it if its overarching purpose is to push a fringe viewpoint. Second, most of the "publications" cited for them are from governmental or political sources; citing those to argue in defense of an academically fringe viewpoint is inappropriate. A government ultimately publishes and supports things that reflect the viewpoints of its leadership (who, in a democracy, will in turn take the positions they believe will get them re-elected or otherwise advance their political agenda.) It's like trying to cite the opinions of government officials on the efficacy of faith healing, or global warming, or the creation-evolution controversy, or the origins of COVID; plenty of politicians and their pet projects will embrace fringe perspectives on those things, but there's no evidence that the fringe nonsense pushed by this group is taken seriously outside of that bubble. EDIT: One thing I want to underline is that SEGM has an incredibly idiosyncratic definition of trans "youth" as being anyone under 25, which is certainly fringe. I also want to note that some of the arguments people are presenting in defense of SEGM are classic arguments used to defend FRINGE organizations - in addition to arguing that the fact that their position has had governmental support, there are constant attacks on WPATH based on the idea that 1. these governments criticize them, and, 2. SEGM criticizes them, rendering it a he-said-she-said where WPATH's statements on SEGM are biased. That's not how WP:FRINGE works - obviously a fringe organization, and governments devoted to fringe science, are going to attack the most prominent mainstream medical orgs on the topic. We see a similar dynamic for eg. climate change today, and saw a similar dynamic for the creation-evolution controversy in the past. It is academic acceptance that matters; and WPATH is treated as the gold standard for mainstream science on trans issues, academically, whereas SEGM is treated as fringe. In the same way that a source criticizing mainstream climatology is a red flag that they're pushing climate-science fringe material, sweeping attacks on WPATH are a red flag for fringe trans science. --Aquillion (talk) 22:36, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

• Yes, fringe. They're more or less solely dedicated to preventing people from transitioning. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:44, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

• Fringe because they are opposite of the scientific process. They have a conclusion they believe strongly in and then try to manufacture evidence for the former. They're not an independent research body following the evidence wherever it leads. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 22:44, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
• :"{{xt|They have a conclusion they believe strongly in}}" could be said about basically every organization in this subject area. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:02, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

• Yes Per nom. I am sure a few people (like void already has) will note their sponsorship of McMaster university to create some systemic reviews. I will just note here that Gordan Guyatt has criticised SEGM for placing a low value on children's autonomy and is forming their position before the evidence is there, [https://undark.org/2024/05/20/pediatric-transgender-care-contentious-segm/ This undark peice] Is the source.

:I am also sure that people will argue that their position is common in Europe. This is on the misunderstanding that SEGM are merely cautious, not the truth that they have advocated for outright banning of healthcare which is a position no medorg has taken.

:There is more to say with their advocating of gender exploratory therapy (which last I checked there were no studies done so it's efficacy and safety is highly questionable). However I think this is already a wall of text. LunaHasArrived (talk) 22:45, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

::{{tq|which last I checked there were no studies done so it's efficacy and safety is highly questionable}} [https://www.nature.com/articles/s44220-023-00041-z Wang et al., 2023] is a Tsinghua University paper published in Nature Mental Health which finds a range of adverse outcomes associated with what it terms "Gender identity conversion practice" or "Gender Identity Conversion Efforts". Same goes for Western papers such as [https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/2749479 Turban et al., 2019], published in JAMA Psychiatry. The only apparent point of contention is that neither have used the specific term "gender exploratory therapy". At the same time, it logically follows that the burden of proof ought to rest with those arguing there is a meaningful difference between those two terms, including explanations of how they are different. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 13:15, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

• Yes, undeniably There is no ambiguity in this case. Reliable third parties identify this organization as peddling pseudoscience. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:18, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
• :But at the same time this organization comissions systematic reviews with a leading university that is published in leading medical journals. That's not fringe. Evathedutch (talk) 01:39, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::I haven't seen any evidence that "this organization conducts systematic reviews with a leading university that is published in leading medical journals," only that they fund systematic reviews by a leading university that are published in peer-reviewed journals. Do you have evidence of them conducting systematic revews / being published themselves in leading medical journals? FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:34, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::You are right. I changed it to commissions. Thank you! Evathedutch (talk) 03:32, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Just a heads up that when you edit your comment after someone has already responded to it, it's good practice to use strikethroughs and underscores to make the change clear. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:38, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
• Yes, obvious FRINGE. Wikipedia doesn’t pass judgment on the merit of arguments. It defers to the major scholars and scholarly and medical bodies relevant to the question. When those bodies not only suspiciously avoid an organization, but actively advocate against it…it’s FRINGE. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:25, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
• :But when this organization aligns with national health authorities who disagree with those very professional medical organizations it's not fringe, it's just clashing POV. Evathedutch (talk) 01:46, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::{{tq|1=when this organization aligns with national health authorities}}
  We on Wikipedia are a global encyclopedia, that respects scientific and medical bodies far above governmental ones which are governed by politics, rather than evidence. This is not "USipedia". — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 04:05, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

• Questions for "Yes" voters, would these two BMJ sources be WP:UNDUE as they're funded by the SEBGM? i.e. does this only extend to papers published by the SEBGM, or all research funded by it? [https://adc.bmj.com/content/early/2025/01/24/archdischild-2024-327921] [https://adc.bmj.com/content/early/2025/01/29/archdischild-2024-327909] Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:04, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

::This isn't about UNDUE. This is about FRINGE. I think the stuff they fund can, in theory, be taken on a case by case basis but it seems very unlikely that a fringe advocacy group would be funding good research conducted independently and impartially. That would simply not be value for their money. So, if they throw a small sum of money at valid independent research that they hope might serve their purposes then that's probably not disqualifying so long as they are not interfering with the research itself. If they are commissioning or participating in the research then that's cause to be exceptionally cautious. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

::Neutral right now. I'm unconvinced by "yes" !voters. Boiling this down:

::* {{!tq|The SPLC designated SEGM as a hate group.}}

::** The SPLC is an advocacy group and it's unclear how a "hate group" designation from a left-wing organization automatically makes an organization WP:FRINGE. Being opposed to transgender healthcare may be ideologically anti-trans yet still be supported by scientific evidence.

::* {{!tq|Endocrine Society and the American Academy of Pediatrics call it fringe.}}

::** Can the "yes" voters cite some non-American organizations?

::I'm also very unhappy with the opening statement from YFNS. It is both non-neutral and doesn't have many inline citations. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:12, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Not fringe. {{u|LokiTheLiar}} has made it clear that this designation is intended to ban any publications "touched" by SEBGM, contrary to what Shibbolethink asserts below. Quoting: {{!xt|It appears that the article relies significantly on letters from SEGM, which as you can see above the community agrees is an organization dedicated to pushing fringe theories. So at minimum the BMJ did not check this article closely enough for facts for it to be reliable.}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1274014996] While I doubt it's WP:DUE in many situations, describing it as WP:FRINGE would mean that articles published in respected academic journals would be unreliable if they had any involvement with SEBGM in any way. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 13:36, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

::::@Chess, your claim that {{tq| LokiTheLiar has made it clear that this designation is intended to ban any publications "touched" by SEBGM}} is false, as I explained to you below. I suggest that you retract your false claim about Loki. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:47, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{re|FactOrOpinion}} Please provide some examples of when a publication can rely on SEGM to argue against trans rights and be reliable and due onwiki. I was willing to give the benefit of the doubt in my original comment (which is why I !voted Neutral). I still am if you can show me some counterexamples.

:::::Right now, the standard Loki (and presumably you) are advocating means a peer-reviewed article from the British Medical Journal is now wholly unreliable because it partially relies on a letter from SEGM. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 16:52, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::@Chess, I'm totally baffled by your request that I "provide some examples of when a publication can rely on SEGM to argue against trans rights and be reliable and due onwiki," when I've said nothing about that topic. I have no onus to provide examples out of the blue simply because you want examples of something. Ask someone who actually said something about it, not me. Re: "the standard Loki (and presumably you) are advocating," wow, what an astounding presumption on your part. I've said nothing about that. All I've done is point out your strawman argument and ask you to retract your false claim. Do you seriously not understand why it's a strawman to transform Loki's actually statement, which was limited to a single News/Features column into a statement that "LokiTheLiar has made it clear that this designation is intended to ban any publications "touched" by SEBGM"? You're asserting that Loki's actual statement (A) implies your wild overgeneralization (B) when A does not imply B. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

:::{{tq|The SPLC is an advocacy group and it's unclear how a "hate group" designation from a left-wing organization}}

:::Per WP:RS/P:

:::{{blockquote|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. Take care to ensure that content from the SPLC constitutes due weight in the article and conforms to the biographies of living persons policy. Some editors have questioned the reliability of the SPLC on non-United States topics. SPLC classifications should not automatically be included in the lead section of the article about the group which received the classification. The decision to include should rather be decided on a case-by-case basis.}} Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:57, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

::@Chess Every source analysis is reasoned based on all parts of a source - the authors, the publication venue, the paper itself, and the funding. It's a wholistic analysis on a case-by-case basis. Nobody is throwing out all publications "touched" by SEBGM. It's moreso that things /they/ publish as a body are determined to be FRINGE. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 04:06, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

:::{{tq | Nobody is throwing out all publications "touched" by SEBGM}}

:::@Shibbolethink I really would ask you to please at least have a look for "SEGM" in the Cass Review talk archives for examples of exactly this, even going so far as dismissing the BMJ for "{{tq | platforming a fringe org as legitimate}}". A run through other such past discussions brings up many such similar cases and there's many more.

:::Exclusion of anything "touched" by SEGM is the clear intent of this RFC, not merely the reliability of self-published material (which would obviously not be usable other than the most basic of WP:ABOUTSELF). Void if removed (talk) 11:42, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

:::{{re|Shibbolethink}} This RfC is already being used to justify claiming papers are unreliable due to association with SEBGM and it hasn't even ended.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1274014996] Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 13:37, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

• Yes, fringe. Pretty unambiguously. Skyerise (talk) 00:29, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
• Fringe is the politest term for it. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

• No, clearly not Fringe.

:The field of youth gender medicine is a hotly debated and rapidly evolving field. There are opposing positions, but are those positions are not fringe just because they clash. SEGM's positions are aligned with the NHS and are not aligned with AAP or Endocrine Society. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:MEDORG&redirect=no WP:MEDORG] tells us how to give weight if guidelines clash. National Guideline (e.g. NHS) rank higher than professional Society (e.g. Endocrine Society). These positions can't can't be dismissed as fringe by pointing to a position of a professional society because [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:MEDORG&redirect=no WP:MEDORG] gives less weight to professional societies like AAP or Endocrine than it does to NHS.

:Also, several MAJOR outlets have talked about SEGM in a neutral or positive light or have quoted SEGM founders (papers even have standards for op-eds). This doesn't include smaller papers. This demonstrates SEGM is not a fringe org.

:* Economist  [https://archive.ph/MnDVy Apr 5, 2023], Quotes Will Malone; [https://archive.ph/9w2Ho Jul 28, 2022] Quotes Will Malone

:* The New York Times [https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/03/health/aap-gender-affirming-care-evidence-review.html Aug 3, 2023] Quotes Julia Mason [https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/01/30/opinion/thepoint?searchResultPosition=3#transgender-detransitioning-numbers Feb 5 2024 Oped], “one of the most reliable nonpartisan organizations dedicated to the field”

:* BMJ Investigation: [https://www.bmj.com/content/387/bmj.q2227 Oct 30, 2024]  Quotes cofounder Zhenya Abbruzzese; [https://www.bmj.com/content/385/bmj.q1141 May 23, 2024] describes SEGM as a group of researchers and clinicians that has pushed for systematic reviews and an evidence based approach”

:* The Telegraph [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/11/13/tavistock-clinic-puberty-blockers-trans-teens-hannah-barnes/ Nov 13, 2023] talks about SEGM conference

:* Wall Street Journal [https://www.wsj.com/articles/trans-gender-affirming-care-transition-hormone-surgery-evidence-c1961e27 Jun 13, 2023] [OPed by SEGM co-founder Will Malone]

:* National Post [https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/transgender-treatments-for-kids Jan 24, 2025] Entire article about the two systematic reviews that SEGM commissioned with McMaster

:* Medscape Medical News [https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/979262?_ga=2.140243763.1851412950.1684607688-935380365.1684607685 Aug 16 2022]  Quotes Julia Mason

:Evathedutch (talk) 01:17, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

::Per WP:MEDORG: International guidelines (such as the Endocrine Society and WPATH) are more weighty than national ones

::Per WP:NFRINGE: {{Tq| Even reputable news outlets have been known to publish credulous profiles of fringe theories and their proponents}} - Discounting the WP:RSOPINIONS (which are not WP:RS) - The Economist is a quote and fails NFRINGE, the WP:TELEGRAPH has a noted anti-trans bias, the NYT article is about how SEGM is a small group critical of gender-affirming care who the American Academy of Pediatrics don't take seriously,and Medscape says the same. The author of the BMJ piece's has been criticized by the British Medical Association, who has previously said {{tq|We have recently written to the BMJ, which is editorially independent, to challenge its article “Gender dysphoria in young people is rising—and so is professional disagreement” and express our concern, that alongside criticisms made by LGTBQ+ organisations such as GLADD and neurodivergent doctors, in our view, it lacks equality, diversity and inclusion awareness and patient voice. That the article has been used by transphobic lobby groups around the world is of particular concern to us.}}[https://www.bma.org.uk/news-and-opinion/take-pride-in-progress] LGBT doctor's associations in the UK including GLAD and the Royal College of Surgeons' LGBT chapter have said the same[https://x.com/GLADDUK/status/1641535620869660683/photo/1][https://www.bmj.com/content/380/bmj.p382/rapid-responses] Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 01:40, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

• Yes, fringe. Heck, Cornell University Library even [https://guides.library.cornell.edu/c.php?g=1306898&p=9630480 uses SEGM as an example of a source to avoid] in one of their LibGuides CambrianCrab (talk) 01:26, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

::It's considered a tell tale sign of misformation when a section on "Finding and Evaluating Information" is abused to tell people what source not to trust. It goes against information literacy guidance from the Association of College and Research Libraries. Evathedutch (talk) 04:47, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Just noticed this reply, I’m not following this discussion so please ping me if there's anything else for this thread. To address your comments, the Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education by the ACRL (which I assume is what you’re referring to) doesn’t say anything about not giving examples of bad sources. That would be a very strange rule to have, as it’s pretty standard practice. Many libraries use Wikipedia as an example of a source to avoid ;). That framework isn’t really made to provide rules like that anyway, it’s more a set of concepts and ideas about what information literacy means. I’m not sure it’s relevant here at all. CambrianCrab (talk) 23:43, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

• Yes, definitely fringe. They are known for propagating unfounded theories like ROGD and there is an abundance of reliable sources (eg. the Endocrine Society) which describe them as being outside of the medical mainstream. HenrikHolen (talk) 02:39, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
• Yes, fringe. My response to points already made:

:* Multiple reliable sources per nom and comments describe SEGM as fringe or unreliable or words to that effect. Attacks on those sources, such as suggesting the Endocrine Society cannot be taken as expert because its guidelines were criticised in one article for opaqueness, are weak attempts to shoot the messenger. Likewise, the argument that the SPLC cannot be trusted because they have been expert witnesses in cases involving the SEGM makes no sense. That would discredit any expert witness that had testified against a fringe group from being an expert on that group.

:* I find the argument that because people associated with SEGM have published peer-reviewed articles, therefore SEGM is not fringe, simply not plausible. There are people associated with climate science denialism who get published. That does not make climate denialism mainstream. In addition, I note that one of the people thus cited is Gordon Guyatt. Others have noted that he is ambivalent about SEGM. The thing is, he describes himself in the same source given as not an expert in gender affirming care. So I'm not sure why his case is relevant at all.

:* The argument that the UK Cass Final Review aligns with SEGM, so SEGM is not FRINGE is also false. The Cass Review, whatever issues it has (and RS suggest it does), does not align with SEGM. It does not support ROGD (which it calls controversial and does not endorse), nor conversion therapy, which Cass explicitly rejects. Nor does Cass call for an end to transgender health interventions even for youth, let alone adults.

:* That some major news outlets cite the SEGM is not a relevant issue for whether or not something is fringe. Climate science denying organisations have had the same treatment, and from many of the news sources cited here. Whether or not an organisation is fringe is about the science in this particular field, not about the salience of political hostility to gender affirming care.

:* Finally, as a check for credibility of this conclusion and in response to arguments made here, the concept of Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria, which SEGM promotes, is clearly fringe. It doesn't have an evidence base, and has been explicitly rejected by multiple expert bodies. That scientific bodies are always open to examining ideas does not make those ideas mainstream. The quote from the European Academy of Paediatrics makes it clear that experts and scientific bodies view the theory critically. So as a smell check too, SEGM is FRINGE. OsFish (talk) 06:13, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

::Extra comment based on report published subsequent to my original !vote. I have gone into detail in the discussion section [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&curid=12106325&diff=1285690964&oldid=1285662387 here], but in short - Polish expert consensus document published 26 February 2025 states explicitly that European countries generally have not abandoned affirmative medical interventions (ie that SEGM's claim to represent European medical opinion is highly dubious), and that Cass is counter to expert opinion. Given that SEGM is more extreme than Cass, it strengthens my view that SEGM is fringe. OsFish (talk) 04:59, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• Obviously FRINGE per discussion above and to quote WP:NFRINGE: "Even reputable news outlets have been known to publish credulous profiles of fringe theories and their proponents, and there continue to be many completely unreliable sources masquerading as legitimate." Relm (talk) 06:59, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
• Certainly not FRINGE. What substantively makes SEGM fringe? This organization advocates for the evidence-based approach to the medical transition of minors, which aligns closely with state policies in most European countries. Undark magazine is the only source that ran a dedicated and well-researched article about SEGM, and it writes: "On key issues, the organization’s views were increasingly aligned with those of several major European medical institutions, which were beginning to restrict access to puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones". [https://undark.org/2024/05/20/pediatric-transgender-care-contentious-segm/] Can anyone say that those European medical institutions are fringe? The situation in the world has drastically changed in the last two years. Most European states banned or strictly limited puberty blockers and surgery on minors, including the UK, Finland, Denmark, France, etc. [https://www.euronews.com/health/2024/12/13/the-uk-is-the-latest-country-to-ban-puberty-blockers-for-trans-kids-why-is-europe-restrict] The UK’s NHS, for example, has now fully banned them. Could one really say the national health system of one of the most developed countries in the world is fringe? SEGM’s position is straightforward: the U.S. should follow the evidence-based approach that much of Europe has already adopted. That is not a fringe stance—it’s becoming the prevailing policy in developed nations (informed by medical consensus). In addition to European states, most of the US states also banned puberty blockers on minors. Is that fringe? Being fringe means promoting unconventional and not-generally accepted views. I cannot see how advocating something that is the official policy in most of the world (based on the research done in each country) could be considered fringe? The criticism of SEGM comes from advocacy sources such as SPLC, which is recognized as biased in WP:RSP, and the leaders of WPATH, the controversial organization that developed the guidelines for transgender care. The article about SEGM cites in the lead AJ Eckert, who is one of the leaders of WPATH, and the speaker for the endocrine society, Joshua Safer, which is another WPATH leader. SEGM has been very critical of WPATH, because it was revealed that WPATH was involved in manipulating scientific evidence. In particular, as reported by [https://www.economist.com/united-states/2024/06/27/research-into-trans-medicine-has-been-manipulated the Economist] and [https://www.bmj.com/content/387/bmj.q2227 the BMJ], WPATH suppressed publication of systematic reviews that they had commissioned from Johns Hopkins University, because Hopkins team research did not deliver the results that WPATH wanted. In fact, the Hopkins team reported that they “found little to no evidence about children and adolescents.” In addition, as reported by a number of mainstream publications, in particular The New York Times [https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/28/health/transgender-surgery-biden.html] [https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/25/health/transgender-minors-surgeries.html], The Hill [https://thehill.com/homenews/lgbtq/4753693-white-house-gender-affirming-surgeries-limited-adults/] and others, WPATH removed minimum ages for the treatment of minors from the latest revision of their “Standards of Care” under the pressure from Dr. Rachel Levine of HHS. So how could WPATH with its controversial guidelines that are being rejected pretty much everywhere now be mainstream, and SEGM, whose views align with official policies in most of developed countries be fringe? Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 09:35, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

• No not Fringe I’m concerned that fringe is a term that can be easily abused against organizations on Wikipedia by those with opposing viewpoints. Some of the sources that say SEGM’s fringe have a conflict of interest or said it a while ago when SEGM was new to the field.  As of today, given that McMaster University, a powerhouse in evidence-based medicine, has taken research agreements with SEGM, and three systematic reviews so far have been published in major medical journals, they cannot be considered fringe. BlueBellTree (talk) 06:48, 3 February 2025 (UTC) (striking duplicate vote, you've already "voted" above Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:21, 7 February 2025 (UTC))

:If these research agreements exist McMaster University is being very quiet about them. Do you have any sources for this claim? Simonm223 (talk) 11:34, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

::https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/transgender-treatments-for-kids 72.71.223.163 (talk) 16:18, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Thanks. I was able to do some due diligence and the only named author of the study [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Chan-Kulatunga-Moruzi is an advocate for ROGD]. So it just seems like a fringe org funding a fringe researcher then doing PR about it in a very conservative newspaper. Simonm223 (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

::::The article also mentions Dr Guyett. Here is a link to the most recent review: https://adc.bmj.com/content/early/2025/01/29/archdischild-2024-327909 PositivelyUncertain (talk) 19:35, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

::The SR itself https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39252149/

::This is how SRs work. The entity that is commissioning has a research agreement with the entity that is conducting and policies to stay arms length (unlike WPATH and Hopkins which got exposed for violating that and suppressing results) Evathedutch (talk) 20:45, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

:::It doesn't really change that one of the authors of this study advocates for ROGD - which is definitely a fringe medical belief - and that rather than the funding source calls this study into severe question. Simonm223 (talk) 16:25, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

• Fringe It's possible that the SPLC might make the occasional mistake, but this is (supposedly) a scientific organization. A normal scientific organization shouldn't even be on the SPLC's radar, and if they are.... Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 14:24, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

• No, not fringe. I think some people who voted fringe based their votes on the article about SEGM, which is far from being neutral and its neutrality has been debated for a very long time at its talk page. However, the article about SEGM heavily relies on biased sources. Most of the criticism comes from various advocacy sources that cannot be neutral by definition and persons with an obvious conflict of interest. But most independent sources do not call SEGM fringe, as was mentioned above by others. For example, the BMJ is a reliable and well respected source. It refers to SEGM as "a group of researchers and clinicians that has pushed for systematic reviews and an evidence-based approach". The Economist refers to SEGM as "an international group of doctors and researchers" [https://www.economist.com/international/2020/12/12/an-english-ruling-on-transgender-teens-could-have-global-repercussions], and the Associated Press calls SEGM "a nonprofit group of health professionals who are concerned about medical transition risks for minors". [https://apnews.com/article/science-health-gender-identity-79a844a84cbc3fc1ff178476cc16cf2e]. These sources are listed as reliable at WP:RSP, unlike SPLC, which is listed as reliable, but biased. Also, SEGM does not advocate for conversion therapy. Psychotherapy is the first line of treatment in the UK, Finland and other countries. SEGM advocates for a similar approach. According to Undark, "SEGM believes psychological support should be offered as an alternative treatment", and "This emphasis on psychological support aligns with current health policy in several other countries, including Sweden, Finland and the U.K." Since psychological support is the health policy in a number of European countries, it definitely is not fringe. JonJ937 (talk) 15:46, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
• :Again, an appeal to state authority is not a response to the statement that pseudoscientific claims (such as the pushing of ROGD) and hate-activism (per the SPLC) make this a fringe outlet. Especially when one of the countries whose state authority is being claimed is the UK which is notorious for its hostility to Trans people. Simonm223 (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::SPLC are radical leftist activists who slap the label of a "hate group" on people they disagree with. Their bias is obvious. UK authorities are not hostile to trans people and neither are all other European states that banned irreversible medical interventions into children's health. In today's news, Ireland became yet another European country that banned puberty blockers for minors. [https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/government-drops-previous-plan-to-let-under-16s-legally-change-genders/a654148902.html] Quote:
• ::{{tq |Dr Paul Moran, a consultant psychiatrist at the National Gender Service, said he was relieved to see that implementing WPATH in Ireland was no longer a government aim. Instead, the 2025 programme says the Government will “ensure a transgender healthcare service that is based on clinical evidence, respect, inclusiveness and compassion”. “It is more complicated than the activists would lead you to believe, so we welcome the commitment to evidence-based care. The WPATH model of care was not evidence based and that has been shown by the Hilary Cass report. WPATH has come under scrutiny for suppressing evidence in America and has been significantly discredited. "As an advisory body, a lot of medical people have stepped away from it and it was increasingly controlled by lay people or activists. It promoted gender care that went against the best evidence such as of giving puberty blockers to children.”}}
• ::Are Ireland's health authorities also fringe? And what makes WPATH's shoddy scholarship that is being rejected globally, mainstream and SEGM's criticism of it fringe? JonJ937 (talk) 18:47, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::WP:SPLC is generally reliable. The UK has been internationally criticized for its treatment of trans people[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21st-century_anti-trans_movement_in_the_United_Kingdom#International_responses]. No European states have banned trans healthcare. Governments are not MEDRS. And that is a quote from 1 doctor, who also opposes self-id for 16 year olds, a position supported by no medical organization anywhere in the world. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::::How about the rest of Europe? Finland, Sweden, Denmark, etc and now Ireland also banned or limited puberty blockers (not healthcare in general, no one banned it). Are they all transphobic? Health authorities employ medical professionals who rely on scholarly evidence. So far the evidence does not show benefits of puberty blockers and surgery on minors, which is why such treatments are getting banned all over the world now. JonJ937 (talk) 20:13, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::Jon, I think you'll find it's more complicated than that. The SPLC isn't necessarily Radical politics, unless you think that things like "opposing racism" is fundamentally changing the basis for society. (If so, then I believe that the current pope hopes you will consider the Catholic Church as being engaged in radical politics, too.)
• :::It is more or less true that the SPLC disagree with the groups they label as hate groups, but these are not exclusively associated with right-wing politics. For example, the New Black Panther Party and Nuwaubian Nation have been designated as hate groups because of their anti-white racism.
• :::Also, the point about the UK being hostile isn't necessarily, or even primarily, about the "UK authorities". It has a lot to do with the mainstream media landscape, which has spent a lot more time talking about (usually negatively) trans-related subjects than the US media did. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:06, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::::I see your point. But in any case, SPLC is an advocacy group and their opinions are just their opinions. JonJ937 (talk) 20:20, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Yes, their opinions are "just" their opinions. But that's true for everyone and every group. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

:SPLC themselves in court says that “the term ‘hate group’ has a highly debatable and ambiguous meaning” The SPLC hate designation has become an area of notoriety for SPLC. Major left and left leaning outlets have said the following about SPLC:

:[https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/06/28/morris-dees-splc-trump-southern-poverty-law-center-215312/ Politico] said of SPLC: “becoming more of a partisan progressive hit operation than a civil rights watchdog…the group abuses its position as an arbiter of hatred by labeling legitimate players “hate groups” and “extremists” to keep the attention of its liberal donors and grind a political ax.” [https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/08/17/southern-poverty-law-center-hate-groups-scam-column/2022301001/ Current Affairs: Editor-in-Chief] scrutinized the SPLC “Hate Map” and found it to be an “outright fraud” and a “willful deception designed to scare older liberals into writing checks to the SPLC.” Evathedutch (talk) 20:51, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

::Exactly what I was saying. How can anyone rely on SPLC for statements of facts? Yet this is what is done in the article about SEGM, where SPLC cited more than 20 times, even for statements of facts in the lead. The whole article about SEGM lacks balance and extensively relies on sources such as SPLC or Science-Based Medicine which we are supposed to use with caution per consensus at WP:RSP. JonJ937 (talk) 11:09, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

• Question for "not fringe" voters: SEGM has argued that Canada's ban on conversion therapy shouldn't include gender identity[https://sencanada.ca/content/sen/committee/432/LCJC/Briefs/2021-05-07_LCJC_C-6_Brief_SEGM_e.pdf] Stella O'Malley, SEGM advisor and Genspect founder has argued that US[https://www.economist.com/united-states/2022/06/23/the-biden-administrations-confused-embrace-of-trans-rights] and Ireland[https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/bill-to-ban-conversion-therapy-poses-problems-for-therapists-1.4642164] shouldn't include gender identity in their conversion therapy bans.

:How is saying conversion therapy bans shouldn't include "gender identity" in addition to "sexual orientation" not FRINGE, considering every health organization in the world defines conversion therapy as applying to both "sexual orientation" and "gender identity"? Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:05, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

::This is just a manipulation with terms, which the sources that you quote also confirm. SEGM never advocated for "conversion therapy". Their detractors deliberately call any psychotherapy for transgender people "conversion therapy", which SEGM always rejected. The Economist article that you quoted also makes it clear:

::{{quote frame |"Until recently the term “conversion therapy” was used to refer to the barbaric and pointless practice of trying to turn a gay person straight. Of late it has been widened to include talking therapy that explores why a person’s gender identity is at odds with their biological sex. ... This is not the same as trying to convince someone they are not gay. Sexual orientation and gender identity are different. Sexual orientation tends to be innate and fixed; gender identity can be nebulous and changeable. It also, increasingly, prompts medical interventions that can have irreversible, harmful effects. It has long been held that people with gender dysphoria should have therapy before drugs. Increasingly, however, such talking therapy has clashed with “gender-affirmative” care, which accepts patients’ self-diagnosis that they are trans. That is now considered best practice in America’s booming trans health-care field. Therapy has been dismissed as “gatekeeping”, even when applied to trans-identifying minors for whom gender-affirming drugs can be particularly harmful.}}

::SEGM themselves always rejected such manipulations with terms. SEGM’s president, Roberto D’Angelo, is a gay man himself and a psychotherapist. He would not practice any conversion therapy on anyone. In his interview to Undark D’Angelo lamented the fact that psychotherapy has wrongly been conflated with conversion therapy, a harmful practice that attempts to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity. Although D’Angelo does not write the referrals, some of his patients do receive medical treatment to transition, he said. “One of the basic rules of psychotherapy is that we don’t try to influence the patient to take any particular action." JonJ937 (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

:::"SEGM said it's not conversion therapy" is not a valid argument. Neither is "opinion piece in newspaper that is not a MEDRS said SEGM has a point". Medical organizations are globally in agreement that conversion therapy includes "gender identity" and "sexual orientation" and should be banned. Can you find WP:MEDRS that define conversion therapy as not applying to gender identity or that say conversion therapy bans shouldn't include gender identity? As Stella O'Malley explicitly said {{tq|We believe the inclusion “suppression of gender identity” in the Bill’s definition risks throwing the baby out with the bathwater. This approach to defining conversion therapy is in danger of unnecessarily restricting the openness, efficacy and ethics of therapy in areas such as gender identity.}}[https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/bill-to-ban-conversion-therapy-poses-problems-for-therapists-1.4642164] Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

::::You cited the Economist yourself and now you are saying it is not MEDRS. Stella O'Malley is not SEGM. Not every type of psychotherapy is conversion therapy. Here is a peer reviewed article [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/26344041241269298]

::::{{quote frame |Looking at the situation from an international viewpoint, the upshot is that in nations and regions that have enacted conversion laws, many mental health professionals are barred, either in law or in fact, from providing psychological treatment from a neutral therapeutic stance to children with gender dysphoria. Therapists who provide neutral, conventional, exploratory therapy, which is mandated by professional ethics—and by evidence-based guidelines in Finland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom—are consequently unable to address the needs of gender dysphoric youth. The legal and professional risks are simply too great. The ultimate consequence is that children who might well profit from a neutral therapeutic space may find it difficult to find a therapist who will take them on; instead, they will find themselves channelled to seek care from practitioners who take a “gender-affirming” position and who regard hormonal interventions—coupled with early social transition—as the preferred and first-line treatment for gender dysphoria. As noted in the systematic reviews discussed above, however, these medically oriented, gender-affirming hormonal treatments are experimental and not currently supported by evidence-based medicine.}} JonJ937 (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::It is not a MEDRS. It is reliable for the opinions of SEGM members. O'Malley is an advisor of SEGM and RS frequently note the overlap between SEGM and Genspect (which has an internal forum that helps parents find conversion therapists for their kids[https://www.dailydot.com/debug/genspect/]). That article is a primary source, whose authors include SEGM's founder, Patrick Hunter (appointed by RonDesantis to justify his anti-trans healthcare ban opposed by all US medical organizations), Stella O'Malley, and conversion therapist Kenneth Zucker - a who's who of unreliable FRINGE activists. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:24, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::It is a peer reviewed paper authored by 20 experts from various countries. You may disagree with it, but that does not stop it from being a scholarly research. JonJ937 (talk) 11:13, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

• Yes thats fringe, I'm really surprised to see anyone saying otherwise... But none of those saying otherwise are very convincing, if there is a solid argument to be made here it has eluded all of them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:18, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
• Clearly FRINGE, per YFNS, Aquillion, HenrikHolen, OsFish and others. That so many No !voters are distracting with paragraphs and paragraphs of comment about Cass and "but how can they be fringe if $publication prints what they say" is hardly a great sign either. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 16:23, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
• Yes, fringe, by virtually every standard possible. Honestly I initially did not think it would even need saying, but seeing the weakness of opposing arguments, and the intensity to which they are pushed in spite of being very comprehensively refuted above, I figured that it could not hurt at this point. Choucas Bleu 🐦‍⬛ 19:01, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

• Yes they are a fringe group. Their research endeavors are motivated by a desire to find a specific outcome which is in opposition to the medical consensus. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:00, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

• Comment If "WP:FRINGE organization" is meant as "an organization that only exists to promote FRINGE viewpoints about trans healthcare and whose members generally promote FRINGE viewpoints," I think that at the very least these FRINGE viewpoints should be explicitly identified as part of the RfC and that it is probably more appropriate for the RfC itself to focus on whether these viewpoints are/aren't FRINGE (e.g., analogous to this RfC, "Is the claim that there are genetic differences in intelligence along racial lines a fringe viewpoint?" and this RfC, "Should rapid-onset gender dysphoria be described as "fringe"?"). FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:29, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
• :We have so many RS saying they're known for so many kinds of fringe views it's hard to count but key ones brought up in this convo have been:
• :* Promoting ROGD (That linked RFC says no consensus on using the word FRINGE in an article, but that consensus seems to be that it is FRINGE, and our ROGD article opens with {{tq|... is a controversial, scientifically unsupported hypothesis}} and gets more critical from there (citing MEDORGS who say it's not real/evidenced, noting the myriad flaws, noting it's mostly used in anti-trans bills, etc)
• :* Arguing conversion therapy doesn't include "gender identity" (a definition unsupported by any medical association or human rights body in the world, who all define it to include sexual orientation and gender identity change efforts, and call to ban both)
• ::* Relatedly, their promotion of the conversion therapy called "gender exploratory therapy", and sharing half a board with conversion therapy group Genspect, and working with conversion therapists like Kenneth Zucker
• :* Their members are frequently called to testify in favor of gender-affirming care bans in the U.S. - every single medical organization in the country opposes those bans.
• :* Working with the American College of Pediatricians - an org that is pretty undebatably FRINGE per the same definition
• :Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 14:38, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::I think it's important to distinguish between whether a view is itself a fringe view and whether a person or organization is advocating or otherwise acting on fringe views. Contrast: "it's a fringe view to believe that ROGD has been scientifically established and is fairly common" and "SEGM is promoting ROGD." Working with the ACP and testifying are not themselves fringe views either, even if they're prompted by fringe views. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:46, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::Testifying that "gender affirming care for minors should be made illegal" is indeed a medically FRINGE view considering every MEDORG in the country says "no it shouldn't"
• :::SEGM holds the FRINGE view that ROGD has been scientifically established - they argue that {{tq| At the demand of activist researchers, Littman’s paper was subjected to a rare second round of post-publication peer review. The paper was later republished with a clearer description of the methodology (emphasizing its reliance on parental reports), but with its conclusions of a likely role of ROGD intact.}} 1) It wasn't "activist researchers" and 2) It's conclusion was struck and she was forced to acknowledge that the data did not confirm ROGD was real. They later say {{tq| should prompt the medical community to take ROGD seriously. This means engaging with this very plausible theory in good faith, rather than continuing to rely on straw man arguments in a concerted clinician-activists-led effort to debunk it.}}[https://segm.org/study-of-1655-cases-lends-support-to-ROGD] On the one hand, you have dozens of medical orgs saying there's no good evidence this exists, it's pathologizing, and on the other SEGM says "activists are silencing us and MEDORGS need to take it seriously!!!!" Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:49, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::::No, "gender affirming care for minors should be made illegal" is a view, but testifying about that is not a view. Testifying is an action. My point about your bullets was that they were all framed in terms of actions (promoting, arguing, testifying, working with, ...) rather than views, and if your characterization of a "WP:FRINGE organization" is "an organization that only exists to promote FRINGE viewpoints about trans healthcare and whose members generally promote FRINGE viewpoints," then you should be explicit about what you believe the fringe viewpoints to be, check whether others agree that these are all fringe viewpoints rather than a mix of viewpoints where only some are fringe, and maybe say why you believe that their sole purpose is to promote the fringe viewpoints rather than existing to promote several viewpoints, some of which are fringe and some of which aren't. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
• :I think it is not enough to declare an organization fringe. This board is about fringe theories. Which particular fringe theories does SEGM promote? Is everything that SEGM supports fringe? For example, is questioning health benefits of puberty blockers for minors fringe? If it is, why is it the health policy of so many developed and progressive countries to ban or restrict such practices? Is suggesting psychotherapy as the first line treatment fringe? If so, then why it is a preferred method in Finland, Sweden and the UK? Gender exploratory therapy is not the same as conversion therapy and is endorsed for example by the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare. They recommend to "offer psychosocial support for unconditional exploration of gender identity during the diagnostic assessment". [https://www.socialstyrelsen.se/globalassets/sharepoint-dokument/artikelkatalog/kunskapsstod/2023-1-8330.pdf] Can we say that the health agencies of those countries support fringe theories? JonJ937 (talk) 17:16, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
• Yes, it's definitely fringe. I haven't seen a single convincing argument from those saying it isn't fringe, while it is generally considered fringe by international experts and bodies. Lewisguile (talk) 14:18, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
• No, not fringe. SEGM is known for its critical approach to the gender affirming model of care for children and adolescents, and it is not a fringe view. It aligns with the health policies in many European countries and even WHO, which stated that its guideline on the health of trans and gender diverse people would not cover children or adolescents. [https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/hq-hiv-hepatitis-and-stis-library/tgd_faq_16012024.pdf] According to WHO: "the scope will cover adults only and not address the needs of children and adolescents, because on review, the evidence base for children and adolescents is limited and variable regarding the longer-term outcomes of gender affirming care for children and adolescents". If "the evidence base for children and adolescents is limited and variable", and views on the subject diverge, opposing it is not fringe at all. Parker.Josh (talk) 10:32, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
• Very much fringe Snokalok (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
• Yes, Fringe city and back again I check in here every so often. I also haven't seen a single argument here or refs/content from the article to say that its a mainstream academic society with common held beliefs backed by scientific consensus. A number of mainstream actors, academics, government entitities have looked at it and reported back. It is no more than fringe. scope_creep^Talk 10:26, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
• Fringe. It is the scientific consensus and the truth that transgender people exist, and organizations that promote conversion therapy for trans people (see above) do not support the scientific consensus. Wikipedia has the responsibility not to entertain transphobic fringe theories and in order to do so it must not treat those who actively spread them as reliable sources. Anyone who saw the Daily Telegraph RFC at the reliable sources noticeboard can tell how many commenters voted "reliable" because they didn't want to exclude a source just for being "gender critical" (heavy quotes). This is another way to say they don't want to treat a source as unreliable because it is transphobic because they don't want to acknowledge that the transphobic claims of the source are not true. It is a similar situation here, and while we can't go back and change the result of that RFC right now we can at least make the right decision here. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

::SEGM do not promote conversion therapy. They propose psychotherapy, including gender exploratory therapy, as the first line of treatment for the dysphoric children, similar to the health policies of the European countries. This is not a fringe view, unless we assume that the health agencies of such progressive European countries as Finland or Sweden are also fringe. This is the best source on SEGM so far and it explains SEGM's position on this issue. [https://undark.org/2024/05/20/pediatric-transgender-care-contentious-segm/] Here's a MEDRS that explains what exploratory therapy is and how it has nothing to do with conversion therapy. [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11201722/] JonJ937 (talk) 15:56, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

:::1) That undark piece notes many independent experts criticizing SEGM and says SEGM denies the allegations, but WP:MANDY applies. Even Guyatt, who takes money from SEGM, criticizes their overt political bias. 2) That is not a WP:MEDRS, it is a WP:MEDPRIMARY perspective piece where the authors (who frequently work with SEGM and only publish opinion pieces that put forward FRINGE views like claiming ROGD is real ) say they think all the Canadian WP:MEDORGS are wrong for considering gender identity change efforts a form of conversion therapy, saying SEGM/Therapy First have it right. Nobody except for conversion therapists are worried about laws banning conversion therapy Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:59, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

::::The Undark article is the only dedicated journalistic report on SEGM. It is a balanced and professional piece that presents both sides of the debate, featuring critics of SEGM (who are often activists, such as Caraballo) as well as SEGM itself. This is how professional journalism is presented. Our Wikipedia article on SEGM, which overwhelmingly quotes critics, lacks balance in contrast. The Undark piece quotes the opinion of SEGM’s president, Dr. Roberto D’Angelo, who is openly gay and is unlikely to engage in any conversion therapy. I shared above a MEDRS source explaining gender exploratory therapy. This is an article in a peer reviewed journal written by D’Angelo himself. [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-020-01844-2] Here is another peer reviewed article by D’Angelo, which is also a MEDRS source, explaining his position on the issue: [https://jme.bmj.com/content/51/1/3] These perspectives are not fringe. Sweden, which is a very progressive country, recommends gender exploratory therapy as the first-line approach. Would you insist that the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare is fringe as well? SEGM opposed Canada’s conversion therapy laws because they were overly restrictive, i.e effectively banning any psychotherapy for gender-dysphoric youth. The National Post, a reliable source per WP:RSP, covered this debate [https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/transgender-gender-dysphoria-treatment]. It presents both sides of the debate, including the Therapy First that you mentioned and cites the above mentioned MEDRS source that you are trying to dismiss. Unfortunately, our Wikipedia articles on this topic lack balance and present only one side of the debate. There is much room for improvement. JonJ937 (talk) 11:54, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::SEGM is not an WP:INDEPENDENT WP:RS on whether SEGM's positions are FRINGE. You did not cite a WP:MEDRS source, you cited a WP:MEDPRIMARY source which is not WP:MEDRS. Those other sources are also not WP:MEDRS. This[https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-020-01844-2] is a letter to the editor - the farthest thing from a WP:MEDRS. This[https://jme.bmj.com/content/51/1/3] is also WP:MEDPRIMARY and not a WP:MEDRS.

:::::The National Post says {{tq|In Canada, gender-affirming care has been endorsed by numerous medical groups, including the Canadian Paediatric Society}} (ie WP:MEDORGs don't support GET) and quotes a spokesperson for the Canadian Psychological Association criticizing GET saying {{tq|Is the person going to have to wait a year before they can access their hormones? Will they ever be granted access to hormones or surgery? Who is responsible for being that gatekeeper? Is it the psychotherapist or the psychologist who decides at some point that, ‘Yes, we’ve done enough exploratory psychotherapy, now you can access this treatment? ... Under the gender-affirming model, children and youth can seek psychosocial support, “If they want to, if they feel the need for that. ... Being transgender is not a mental health issue, If we make mandatory assessment a thing for people who are transgender, we are pathologizing normal gender diversity.}} It also says {{tq|Underpinning psychotherapy is the belief “that there is a way, through rigorous assessments, through exploratory psychotherapy, to discern who is ‘really trans’ and to prevent de-transition, to prevent ‘mistakes’ — people who ‘mistakenly’ think they are trans who are not,” [the spokesperson] said. “The problem with that is that there is no empirical evidence that gender assessment or gender exploratory therapy can accurately predict or prevent de-transition or regret.”}} - IE, SEGM said it's not conversion therapy, WP:MEDORGs disagreed. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:35, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::So you are saying that Sweden is fringe? JonJ937 (talk) 16:27, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Seriously, YFNS spends time and effort refuting your entire argument (which is very visibly little more than your own opinion really) with all the backing of every appropriate policy that applies here, and you just end up going for whataboutism? Come on, try to be a bit more serious at this point, if only for the sake of appearances. Choucas Bleu 🐦‍⬛ 22:27, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::The debate is not limited to Canada. Yes, in Canada the medical establishment is more aligned with the US medical establishments (even though the situation in the USA is changing now and Canada may soon follow). But in Europe the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare, which is a WP:MEDORG, supports gender exploration therapy. YFNS failed to address this point. Can we seriously claim that the Swedish health authorities are promoting fringe theories? YFNS quoted only one side of the debate in Canada, while the National Post quotes the study by the Canadian authors and writes: 'The authors of the new paper, however, argue that psychodynamic (exploratory) psychotherapy isn’t conversion therapy, that the purpose isn’t to discourage or encourage transition and that it takes a “neutral” approach that isn’t based on the assumption that one gender identity is preferable to another. Canada’s conversion law is so vague and broad, they said, “almost any departure from a strict affirmative approach” is being misconstrued as a conversion practice." This paper might be a WP:MEDPRIMARY, but is it a fringe opinion, considering the international debate on this issue? I think it is better to continue this discussion in a thread on therapy below. JonJ937 (talk) 11:13, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

• Problematic RfC - I've already said much of this in comments, but I figured I should post a !vote. There is no WP guideline on what it means for an organization to be a "fringe organization," only a guideline on fringe theories. In fact, this RfC has prompted a discussion on WT:FT re: whether there should be a FRINGEORG section in WP:FT, and if so, what it should say. After 4 days of responses, YFNS clarified that {{tq|by "WP:FRINGE organization," I mean an organization that only exists to promote FRINGE viewpoints about trans healthcare and whose members generally promote FRINGE viewpoints.}} But the RfC doesn't identify their fringe viewpoints or provide evidence of the viewpoints being fringe rather than minority, nor does it show that SEGM only exists to promote fringe viewpoints rather than, say, existing to promote a number of viewpoints, only some of which are fringe. As I understand it, the primary goals of this RfC are to reduce time-consuming talk page discussions and to prevent SEGM publications from being used as sources (as contrasted with a goal of affecting the text of the SEGM article). I think these purposes should have been made clear in the RfC statement. And although I recognize that this was not initially conceived as an RfC, it's a problem that there's a very non-neutral paragraph above the RfC. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:22, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

• Yes, definitely fringe. DavidHintonWiki (talk) 23:01, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
• NOT FRINGE per JonjJ937. Also, the malformed question of an organization, rather than a theory being put on trial as fringe feels a bit like a witch hunt. It doesn't feel fair. And I believe SPLC has been unfair to SEGM in this regard, and many writers have recognized this. I think we need to continue judging every statement on its own merits. No FRINGE shortcuts for anything but a very bona fide fringe theory, like a flat earth. Davemc0 (talk) 06:14, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
• :This is a fair point to keep fringe to theories and theories where these isn't a active and evolving international debate. Evathedutch (talk) 03:21, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
• Incoherent RfC question. Wikipedia policy does not recognise any concept of a "fringe organization". Suggest this RfC is abandoned and discussion focuses on the fringe theory sections below. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 11:26, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
• :Fair point. I also found this to be the case when I explored fringe discussions on other topics. Evathedutch (talk) 03:17, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
• Fringe per scope_creep rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:03, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
• No, not fringe. Regardless of any editor's stance on SEGM, the fact remains that its position—that the evidence for puberty blockers and surgeries in minors is weak—has been increasingly reflected in policy changes across multiple countries. The UK, Sweden, Finland, Norway, and Denmark have all restricted or banned these treatments due to concerns over insufficient evidence and potential risks. The WHO itself has acknowledged that the research behind these interventions remains limited, contradicting claims of a global consensus.SEGM is clearly not fringe. While some argue that SEGM is a fringe organization, this claim becomes difficult to support when major medical bodies are now aligning with many of SEGM’s concerns. The debate in the U.S. further reinforces this point—some states have banned these treatments, others continue to allow them, and a recent executive order attempting to cut federal funding was immediately challenged in court. The fact that this issue remains legally and scientifically unsettled demonstrates that SEGM’s perspective is not outside the mainstream, but rather part of an ongoing and legitimate discussion within global healthcare policy.Colaheed777 (talk) 19:16, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

:*not fringe. Though "fringe" should refer to the theory not an organization in any case.

:BeLikeBritannica (talk) 20:52, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

::It depends - yet another case where context matters. I would say that this organization is fairly mainstream when discussing their political advocacy, but fringe if used in a MEDRS context. Blueboar (talk) 13:15, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

• Yes - Seems pretty straight forward. PackMecEng (talk) 22:40, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
• Yes - This is a designated hate group, publishing misinformation which is refuted by reputable groups, and lacking institutional recognition from their peers. It is irrelevant whether this group may have sometimes done science or sometimes had some recognition. This is a pariah organization which the research community shuns. It operates in the political space of hatemongering against the transgender community. This organization is always welcome to improve its reputation in any of the ways that scientific organizations can do that, but right now, the balance of evidence is unambiguous that this organization is fringe, and their publications are fringe. The question asked here is clear in the context of this organization being a part of a propaganda and misinformation movement, and does not need further refining or restating. Bluerasberry (talk) 00:50, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

:Fringe -- literally four sources in the second sentence of the article on it cite that it regularly purveys misinformation. I am not sure why it is not considered generally unreliable. The commenters above attempt to argue that "The internet turns your kids trans", i.e. "Gender dysphoria is caused by online peer groups to cope with other issues" i.e. the former is a legitimate medical perspective rather than blatant transphobia (ignoring the explanation for the rise in transgender identification as the movement for civil rights since the 1960s, which is 60 years old now). Wikipedia has a duty to reject transphobia and correctly classifying this as a WP:FRINGE source, because of what it claims, is as accurate as rejecting the KKK as a source on African Americans would have been in the 1930s, if Wikipedia had existed then. Wikipedia has a duty not to treat attempts at scientification of transphobia as legitimate. Mrfoogles (talk) 06:10, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

::Really this might be best at WP:RSN, I suppose, except there's not a great track record there for considering transphobic organizations unreliable on trans people. Mrfoogles (talk) 06:12, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I agree on you about RSN, but in the process, this seems to be WP:FORUMSHOP-ing in the spirit of "we will not get the result we want there, so we should not ask there". LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 10:06, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

::::For the record, RSN already considers SEGM unreliable.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_393#Society_for_Evidence-Based_Gender_Medicine] That's a separate question than whether it's fringe as all FRINGE sources are unreliable but not all unreliable sources are fringe. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:24, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

• Yes, fringe. Takes fringe positions, publishes fringe opinions, partners with fringe groups. Chess's argument that "describing it as WP:FRINGE would mean that articles published in respected academic journals would be unreliable if they had any involvement with SEBGM in any way." would be significant and impact my vote... If it was true, but it doesn't appear to be... That isn't how FRINGE works either on paper or in practice. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:55, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
• :It remains unclear what fringe theories this group supports. Their criticism of puberty blockers and prioritizing psychotherapy are not fringe views, as they align with health policies in several European countries. We have separate discussions on puberty blockers and psychotherapy below. SEGM has been criticized by activists and parts of the medical establishment in the U.S. for its opposition to puberty blockers. However, the global medical consensus on puberty blockers has since shifted toward SEGM's position. Even the WHO now admits that the evidence base for puberty blockers is weak. What may have been considered fringe a few years ago is no longer fringe in light of new evidence. Since this board is about fringe theories, not fringe groups, what specific ideas that this group supports make them fringe? Also, as was mentioned above, should all of their ideas be considered fringe? JonJ937 (talk) 11:09, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
• Not Fringe  I agree that WP:Fringe is about theories not orgs and that this is a problematic RfC, so I struggled to vote “Problematic RfF” or “Not Fringe”.  I chose the latter because find it nearly impossible for a “fringe organization” to have the following:

:-Leaders who have authored multiple peer-reviewed articles in leading medical journals

:-An advisor who is presenting at the annual meeting of the main psychiatric association in the US

:-Positions that aligns with the policies of multiple European countries

:-Systematic Reviews conducted by a leading University in EBM and published in major journals

:-Neutral or favorable coverage by multiple major reliable news outlets, including quoted on NPR TenBlueEagles (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::* Note: This user's very first edit was to add promotional uncited content to the lead of the SEGM article in 2022[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Society_for_Evidence-Based_Gender_Medicine&diff=prev&oldid=1115107232], followed by 2 years of inactivity, followed by ~500 edits that were mostly repetitive gnoming / reverted uncited content, followed by a shift to stubs about medical journals in the week before coming here to say SEGM isn't FRINGE. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/TenBlueEagles&target=TenBlueEagles&offset=&limit=500]

::Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:16, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::My first edit was SEGM page a of couple of years ago.  It was the first Wikipedia page I came across that I felt was problematic.  So I naively made an edit that didn’t follow the rules.  It scared me away from Wikipedia.  I am on sabbatical now so I decided to return and learn Wikipedia better. My edits started out simple (sometimes too simple, I found it therapeutic), I received lots of helpful feedback along the way, which made me learn better.  I have tried a variety of new things to improve my skills. Now I am at a point where I can work more confidently on the topics I love.  I feel your cherry-picked description mischaracterizes and diminishes the value I bring to the many pages I have worked on. TenBlueEagles (talk) 15:02, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• Not fringe - no such thing as FRINGEORG - non-neutral RfC. Per FactOrOpinion there is no such thing in Wikipedia policy as a fringe organisation. If this RfC passes, we'd have to invent a whole new standard to define and enforce it. It's incoherent to define a group as WP:FRINGE and then set about deciding what that means.

:Furthermore, Chess points out that the "FRINGEORG" theory is already being used to toss out gold-standard Reliable Sources (peer-reviewed MEDRS like the British Medical Journal). This behaviour continues months later with the primary argument against a review article's use being a co-author's declared affiliation to SEGM. This is backwards - while WP:FRINGE clearly anticipates us categorising fringe theories on the basis of what reliable sources say, some editors have instead gone down the route of relegating reliable sources because of their associations to organisations they hope will be fringe, in advance of:

1. A policy explaining what a fringe organisation is and how to deal with it.
2. An actual determination that the organisation is fringe, whatever that will mean.

:It seems trivial to complain that this RfC opens with a non-neutral statement. If editors are going to run roughshod over the project's policies and guidelines, why would they hold to the norms of mere information pages like WP:RfC, no matter how well-established. Samuelshraga (talk) 13:28, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{tq| [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Transgender_health_care_misinformation#c-Your_Friendly_Neighborhood_Sociologist-20250511153100-Void_if_removed-20250511151400 This behaviour continues] months later with the primary argument against a review article's use being a co-author's declared affiliation to SEGM.}} - Except that wasn't the argument, it was that it was not a MEDRS because it was a commentary piece. Even if the author was not a member of SEGM, it would still be a commentary piece and not MEDRS. I'd even explicitly restated that even if SEGM was not involved at all, it would still not be a MEDRS for the topic.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transgender_health_care_misinformation&diff=prev&oldid=1290113831]

::* If you're going to argue "behavior continues", you should actually provide examples

::Debates over "what is a fringe organization" is silly considering a definition is provided {{tq|by "WP:FRINGE organization," I mean an organization that only exists to promote FRINGE viewpoints about trans healthcare and whose members generally promote FRINGE viewpoints}}. We have a lot of editors who've pointed to RS explicitly calling them out for being outside the medical mainstream, promoters of pseudoscience, and etc. They claim ROGD is real, and we have a longstanding consensus that ROGD is fringe. They claim trans identities are frequently caused by mental illness, which we just had an RFC agree is FRINGE. We have some editors arguing SEGM's positions aren't FRINGE. And then we have, for some reason, even fewer editors arguing they don't like the question and ignoring the meat and bones of the discussion which is: "are SEGM and it's members generally known for promoting FRINGE viewpoints?" - a very straightforward question to answer in either direction. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:46, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::No, the review article is not commentary - it is a review article in a medical journal. It cites a commentary piece. You are now insisting that a statement in a review article published in a medical journal was not citable because the inline citation was to a commentary piece.

:::But that isn't really the full picture of how you started, because what you said at the outset is {{tqq | it's rare by any definition and nobody takes the claim it isn't seriously except WP:QUACKS}}, followed by {{tqq | That study is written by a SEGM member (Cohn), paid for by SEGM}}

:::Your first objection, immediately subsequent to the accusation of quackery, is that one author is associated with SEGM - else why mention it?

:::You then went on to protest that the study cites a commentary piece, but that's not getting away from the fact that to you anyone who says the actual rate of detransition is unknown is a QUACK, and to make your point you exaggerated the influence of SEGM on the review article itself (Cohn is 3rd author and SEGM paid the open access fees).

:::This paper has four authors, and it is a review article in a medical journal. It is absolutely a citable source, much more so than the two non-MEDRS cited on that page at the start of this discussion. Void if removed (talk) 17:18, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::That source is still a narrative review, not systematic, and the only citation for it's claim "Further, the rates of detransition and regret remain unknown" is still just the author's own commentary piece. That is the only time detransition rates are discussed in the paper.

::::If we are writing about the detransition rate, we should systematic review of detransition research. We have many of those, which say the data shows it's rare and likely overestimate it. We should not use narrative reviews of unrelated topics with a throwaway line sourced only to a commentary piece by the author, that's just source laundering. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:54, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{tq | That source is still a narrative review}}

:::::Never said it wasn't.

:::::{{tq | We have many of those, which say the data shows it's rare and likely overestimate it.}}

:::::There are two recent ones and neither say the data shows it is rare. You continue to selectively reference one source that happens to mention in its discussion that it appears rare according to preceding literature on surgical regret. Neither systematic review was able to produce a decent estimate for the detransition rate due to the poor quality of existing studies.

:::::Time and again there is this overstatement of what MEDRS actually say to claim one viewpoint is true and others are FRINGE. Void if removed (talk) 09:30, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::"then we have, for some reason, even fewer editors arguing they don't like the question" (emphasis added). I'm surprised that you say this, since you know the reason: WP:FT says nothing about fringe organizations; it is about fringe theories. And you also know that this led to an extended discussion at WT:FT about whether there should be a section addressing "fringe organizations," and if so, how that might be defined, and there was no consensus for adding that as a section of WP:FT or for how it might be defined. Among other things, editors pointed out that a given organization might promote a combination of views, some of which are fringe, and others of which are minority or mainstream. Another concern was whether the goal of introducing such a section was focused on content in the WP article about the organization, or if it was instead aiming at reducing some kinds of talk page discussions (e.g., whether it was intended to preclude use of the organization's publications, even when a publication was not promoting a fringe view). You even participated in that discussion. Please take people's concerns seriously. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:52, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::If I had started the RFC with the question "Is SEGM an organization notable for its FRINGE viewpoints and members who advance FRINGE viewpoints regarding transgender people and healthcare", how would you answer?

::::If a closer says "There is clear consensus that SEGM is notable primarily for it's advocacy of FRINGE views. There was debate over the use of the term 'fringe organization' to define them, as it does not appear in policy, so we can not find consensus that it is one, but should not diminish the consensus that the organization is primarily known for FRINGE views", would you be comfortable with that? I would, I don't particularly care about SEGM being classed as a "fringe organization" and wouldn't have used it as a shorthand for the above if I'd known that some editors would take issue with it. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:05, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I would likely have said that it seems to me the article already establishes that SEGM is WP-notable for promoting several fringe views, and I'd ask for clarification about why you're taking up people's time with an RfC about that. And if you responded with what you wrote prior to the RfC ({{tq|For the past few years, about once a month somebody tries to argue that the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine isn't WP:FRINGE and won't drop the stick. I'd like outside input here and a centralized FTN thread to point to. NPOVN has found it FRINGE[1] and RSN has found It is fairly clear from this discussion that this advocacy organisation is not reliable for facts about transgender topics (including medical topics), or such is the consensus here.[2]}}), then I'd have asked: why isn't it sufficient to just point to the NPOV and RSN conclusions / what do you think this discussion would accomplish that those discussions did not accomplish? FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:37, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::A good question. I think I already answered, but I'd say:

::::::* 1) The NPOVN discussion was not a formal RFC and thus did not have the same weight as this would

::::::* 2) Wrt the RSN discussion, a source can be unreliable without being FRINGE (though, a source known to be FRINGE would not be considered reliable), so did not establish it's known for FRINGE viewpoints (at least the close didn't)

::::::* 3) Since those discussions had a different scope / weight - I would hope this would finally put it to rest.

::::::** The fact that we have a number of editors here who are insisting with straight faces that SEGM isn't known for pushing FRINGE viewpoints points to pervasiveness of the issue in the topic area.

::::::** And by put to rest, I include 1) attempts to rewrite SEGM from a WP:PROFRINGE perspective downplaying how the medical community considers their views FRINGE and 2) longstanding WP:PROFRINGE pushing across WP:GENSEX that often comes down to trying to cite SEGM's editorials and position statements and etc.

::::::I'd appreciate if, in light of your above comment, you could amend your !vote to note {{tq|SEGM is WP-notable for promoting several fringe views}} - based on your comment here, it seems part of why you consider it a bad RFC is you think it's redundant since it's obvious SEGM is WP-notable for it's FRINGE advocacy, which your !vote doesn't convey. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:05, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::"based on your comment here, it seems part of why you consider it a bad RFC is you think it's redundant." I doubt that I considered notability at all in my assessment of why I found the actual RfC question to be problematic. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::VIR has already responded to point out that you made several arguments for throwing out a source, the first one is association to the organisation under discussion here. I didn't say it was your only argument. Would you like me to strike "primary" and replace it with "first"? As for {{tq|you should actually provide examples}}, (a) I did, and (b) you're not the only one doing this.

:::FOO has pointed out that you have already participated in discussions that didn't come to consensus about actually making a WP:FRINGEORG policy or guideline. You say that no policy is needed because your opening of the RfC defines it as {{tq|an organization that only exists to promote FRINGE viewpoints about trans healthcare and whose members generally promote FRINGE viewpoints}}. There are two problems with this:

:::# Even if the consensus were that SEGM were a fringe organisation, that doesn't mean that consensus adopts every word of your statement. And in any case there are discussions about the creation of a WP:FRINGEORG policy, at an actual appropriate place, in which you've participated yourself.

:::# Editors don't know how a proposed policy will affect editing. If a member of a "fringe organisation" is one of 10 co-authors on a peer-reviewed article, is that article now not RS? If a previously gold-standard publication carries a peer-reviewed piece by a member of such an organisation, can we cite it? Can we cite it for claims that are unrelated to the topics that the organisation is fringe about? What about if it is in the same general topic area, but not specifically a fringe claim? Categorising an organisation as a FRINGEORG and then later (or never) writing WP:FRINGEORG is putting the cart before the horse.

:::Latterly, you say that a determination is needed because: {{tq|For the past few years, about once a month somebody tries to argue that the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine isn't WP:FRINGE and won't drop the stick.}} Yes, those people are right. There's no such thing in wikipedia policy as a fringe organisation, only Wikipedia:Fringe theories. Perhaps you should drop the stick. Samuelshraga (talk) 09:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::{{Tq| There's no such thing in wikipedia policy as a fringe organisation, only Wikipedia:Fringe theories.}} - and SEGM is known for FRINGE theories. Let me rephrase: {{Tq|For the past few years, about once a month somebody tries to argue that the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine isn't notable for it's promotion of FRINGE viewpoints and won't drop the stick}} Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:13, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::The issue with this RFC, as I see it, is that many of the votes calling SEGM a fringe organization don’t actually explain which fringe theories they believe SEGM promotes. Most simply say something like “Yes, I think SEGM is fringe” without giving any real specifics. As FactOrOpinion and others have pointed out, the RFC question also doesn’t make it clear whether an organization should be considered fringe if only some of its views are fringe while others aren't. The question frames SEGM as fringe because it supposedly exists solely to promote fringe viewpoints, but as others have mentioned too, many of SEGM’s positions (according to sources) align with the medical policies of several European countries.

:::There is a consensus on this board that recommendation that puberty blockers shouldn't be prescribed to children outside of medical research is not a fringe view:

:::[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_104#Puberty_blockers_in_children]

:::That means SEGM’s central position, that these drugs shouldn’t be prescribed to children outside research settings, cannot reasonably be considered fringe.

:::So ultimately, this boils down to one key question: is opposition to medical transition for minors or gender-affirming care (GAC) a fringe position? Since there’s no established rule for what makes an organization fringe, this RFC seems to be creating a new standard. One that could potentially label any organization critical of certain medical practices as fringe. That risks painting one side of a valid international medical debate as fringe, and could end up silencing important critical perspectives on GAC for minors. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 10:24, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Your claim that most people have not given reasons for saying SEGM is fringe is simply false. “Per nom” is a reason as is any other reference to arguments made on the page. Agreeing with RS assessments is a reason. Your claim that SEGM’s general stance on trans health is in line with “the medical policies of several European countries” is simply false. SEGM describes those European policies as having “reversed the practice of youth transitions” when that is simply false as the MEDRS Polish expert consensus on trans health makes clear. This RFC has been put forward precisely because editors’ time should not be taken up having to repeatedly repudiate false claims by people promoting SEGM as something other than a fringe group. OsFish (talk) 14:09, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::That’s your personal opinion. According to Undark magazine: “On key issues, the organization’s views were increasingly aligned with those of several major European medical institutions, which were beginning to restrict access to puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones.” [https://undark.org/2024/05/20/pediatric-transgender-care-contentious-segm/] I don’t see how the opinion of a group of Polish doctors, especially when it doesn’t reflect national policy, somehow invalidates the health policies of other European countries.

:::::And finally, there is already consensus on this board that recommending against prescribing puberty blockers to children outside of research settings is not a fringe view. Since that is SEGM’s main position, this undermines the claim that the organization exists solely to promote fringe views. At the very least, its core position is not fringe, as confirmed by community consensus. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 08:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::SEGM's main position is that no medical interventions should be given to anyone under 25. There is some evidence to suggest that their position is more extreme than this (suggestions that they endorse a type of conversion therapy and the undark peice says SEGM doesn't state an age at which they would recommend medical interventions) but even the under 25 view is extremely fringe and not backed by any medical institution. It should also be noted that inherintly the polish Medrs is going to be more reliable at interpreting medical guidelines than the Undark peice (which just seems to have taken SEGMs word for it given they attribute it once and only mention it twice.) LunaHasArrived (talk) 08:49, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Sean, it isn't my "personal position" that MEDRS outranks non-specialist magazines like Undark. That you want to dismiss MEDRS in favour of such magazines is genuinely your personal position, given that it is 100% against policy. Here is what WP:MEDRS states, and I do urge you to read the whole guideline:

::::::{{quote|Ideal sources for biomedical information include: review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers, and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies.}}

::::::What you dismiss as "a group of Polish doctors, especially when it doesn’t reflect national policy" is the 2025 publication [https://journals.viamedica.pl/endokrynologia_polska/article/view/104289 "Framework guidelines for the process of caring for the health of adolescent transgender (T) and non-binary (NB) people experiencing gender dysphoria — the position statement of the expert panel"] published in the official journal of the Polish Society of Endocrinology, and authored by 44 experts within the Polish medical and research establishment. That is better than a generalist magazine. As for "national policy", as with other countries, and against the stance of SEGM, medical transition in Poland is supported below the age of 25, including the possibility of puberty blockers not as part of a research study. That's flatly against SEGM. SEGM, even in a country with a history of conservatism in these areas, is fringe.

::::::As LunaHasArrived points out, it is, in any case, incredibly misleading to present SEGM as an organisation that only has one stance on one particular treatment (blockers) when their broad opposition to affirming care (including campaigns to prevent conversion therapy bans) is well known. Such tactics only strengthen the case that this RFC is needed. OsFish (talk) 13:46, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• Yes, it's a blatantly fringe group. That is obvious to any good-faith editor. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 22:10, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Would you like to retract the implied accusation of bad faith? Samuelshraga (talk) 09:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• Comment Reformatted this as RFC so pinging @Silver seren, @LokiTheLiar, and @Simonm223 in case they want to reformat/bold their statements. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:54, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
• :Also pinging past RSN participants[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_393#Society_for_Evidence-Based_Gender_Medicine]: @XOR'easter, @Rsjaffe, @Gwennie-nyan, @Skyerise, @ActivelyDisinterested, @BonCourage, @Chess, @Shibbolethink, @Jayron32, @Red-tailed hawk, @MariaGom
• :NPOVN participants[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_109#Society_for_Evidence-Based_Gender_Medicine]: @Colaheed777, @Hob Gadling, @Mathglot, @DFlhb, @Hist9600, @Horse Eye's Back
• :SEGM thread participants[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Society_for_Evidence-Based_Gender_Medicine#Science-Based_Medicine]: @Sean Waltz O'Connell, @LunaHasArrived, @Void if removed, @RelmC, @Evathedutch, @Aquillion, @HenrikHolen, @Zenomonoz, @JonJ937 Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
• :I have notified the LGBT and Medicine Wikiprojects Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:20, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::Typos in pings: @MarioGom and @Bon courage. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:39, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• While I think that this is necessary, I feel like if this RFC ends in a clear affirmative, it might be time (and might be more useful) to take an approach similar to what we did with Race and Intelligence regarding the hereditarian perspective and hold a broader RFC on the specific fringe theory being expressed here, in order to hopefully reach a broader consensus that it is fringe. That's a sweeping step and somewhat more difficult, but IMHO it was incredibly successful when it came to race and intelligence (in a single stroke, it settled down what had previously been one of the most heavily-disruptive areas on the wiki.) This assumes, of course, that such a line can be clearly drawn somewhere and a consensus found for it in this topic area - both of which are tricky - but we've been essentially rehashing and dancing around the same core dispute for years now. If we could establish a red line of "these positions are fringe", it might lend a bit of clarity and help settle things down. (Keeping in mind that even fringe opinions can be covered - and sometimes even must be - they'd just have to be covered as such and sources endorsing them treated with caution.) --Aquillion (talk) 22:46, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
• :I agree, the only issue is that there are so many fringe theories related to this (see transgender health care misinformation) that it'd be hard to sum all of them up in just one RFC question. We have PROFRINGE editors trying to claim that the majority of trans kids grow out of it, that kids just decide they're trans because they're mentally ill and/or caught trans from the internet, that trans kids should be forced through incongruent puberties and subjected to gender exploratory therapy, that LGB trans women are fetishists, etc. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:01, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::On further reflection, and considering Loki's note about the political leading the fringe rather than vice versa, I do have ideas for the overarching questions: {{tq|Is the view that transgender identities are / can be pathological FRINGE?}} and {{tq|Is the view that the medical literature supports restrictions of transgender rights, including healthcare access, FRINGE?}} Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 00:50, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::These were my ideas for possible points that might be FRINGE, after thinking about the underlying disputes in the topic area (not all of these necessarily apply to SEGM, they're just worth asking if we're going to do an RFC):
• :::* The total rejection of any form of transitioning for anyone, including positions that treat trans-ness as entirely pathological, which fundimentially reject the idea that trans people exist, or which treat transitioning as fundimentially invalid. (This is the most low-hanging fruit but may be necessary simply because it seems like the incoming administration in the US is going to be pushing this perspective.)
• :::* The total rejection of any form of transitioning for anyone under 18, including social transitioning; also rejection of the idea that trans youth exist.
• :::* The rejection of the idea that transitioning is, broadly speaking, the best available treatment for most trans people; also the position that transitioning should be avoided as much as possible or that the number of people transitioning should be reduced.
• :::* Support for what is generally called "conversion therapy" and other attempts to "cure" trans people. (wording is complicated here because advocates generally insist that what they support is not conversion therapy due to the stark negative associations that term has gained; but I think there's still clear enough academic literature on this.)
• :::* The total rejection of puberty-blockers in children as a valid treatment for trans youths.
• :::Some of these could be trickier than others, but they are, I think, the main underlying points behind the topic-area's disputes, at least in terms of ones that can be properly seen as medical / scientific questions - and like some of my examples of other topics where aggressive WP:FRINGE enforcement has been necessary, they represent areas where political and media-heavy positions often diverge sharply from independent academic and scientific ones. --Aquillion (talk) 02:20, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::::I think these points are a very good break down of the underlying questions at play, while being actually actionable in ways that are precise enough once specific RfCs would have been run on them. Hopefully it will help clarify the terms of the discussion as well, because this one's scope has become a bit hopelessly blurred from the initial (specific) topic. Choucas Bleu 🐦‍⬛ 15:23, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::This hits at the crux of a lot of this
• :::One side believes in gender distress - a child has a sexed body (like any mammal) and a child can have distress with one's sex, which can be linked with other psychological factors which can be explored and addressed as a first line of treatment, because the evidence base (after many systematic reviews) show the benefits don't outweigh the harms of stopping puberty (stunting the development of a healthy human body) and leaving a human infertile and without sexual function.
• :::The other side believes in gender ideology eg it is actually a girl trapped in a boy's body, it's not pathological, but it needs treatment, and the only treatment is to change the body to match the inner gender, for which there is no scientific test, just self attestation and that can be fluid over time or on a given day.
• :::These are views that clash. Wikipedia allows for views to clash. It doesn't match the active, evolving international debate to dismiss one as fringe. Evathedutch (talk) 20:29, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::::The evidence doesn't show that, and the view that trans identities are pathological is FRINGE and blatantly offensive bullshit. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:31, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::::The medical field doesn't treat identities. Evathedutch (talk) 21:09, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::::This strikes me as (a) conflating metaphysical beliefs with medical/social policy positions, and (b) containing some claims that may be good candidates for asking, "Is this FRINGE"?
• ::::The question of whether there's a gendered essence, as it were, is beyond the scope of this discussion. The disagreement is over how to address what you term "gender distress" (which I understand to be more commonly called "gender dysphoria") and the people who experience it (generally referred to as trans people). The prevailing view, as far as I'm aware, is that a variety of social and/or medical interventions may be appropriate depending on the circumstances, generally aimed at bringing a person's external presentation closer to their inner perception of their gender, and that this is broadly speaking a better approach (with regards to improving mental health and social functioning) than attempting to realign their internal experience of their own identity.
• ::::You bring up several points that I think could be subjects of discussion in their own right:
• ::::* That the evidence shows that the risks of puberty blockers outweigh the benefits;
• ::::** That these risks specifically include infertility and lack of sexual function;
• ::::* That gender dysphoria is generally pathological (I understand you to be implying that the "gender-distress" side believes this, because you contrast with the "gender-ideology" side that believes it's not pathological);
• ::::* That non-transition-based approaches to gender dysphoria are typically the best first line of treatment;
• ::::* That transition-based approaches to gender dysphoria are predicated on belief in a metaphysical gendered self ("gender ideology"), rather than on evidence.
• ::::Some or all of these bullet points could be good candidates for WP:FRINGE discussions, in my opinion. Agreeable-absurdist (talk) 15:17, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Technically nobody is discussing any sort of metaphysical belief. What is being discussed is properly epistemological or ontological in character. There is also a significant ethical dimension that carries forward from these epistemological and ontological commitments. As it's ontological and epistemological in character a quest for a gendered essence is unnecessary. Gender is something learned and something experienced; it is not something that floats free-standing in the Realm of Ideal Forms. Simonm223 (talk) 15:25, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::I'll concede that I'm rusty with those sorts of distinctions; I believe I agree with everything you're saying.
• ::::::The point I was making was that the comment preceding mine seemed to imply that you and I, along with anyone else who supports people in shaping their lives to align with their gender identity, do believe in some free-standing Platonic form of gender, or something like that.
• ::::::Agreeable-absurdist (talk) 17:23, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
• :I definitely think there are some fringe theories regarding trans medicine that would be pretty easy to win an RFC about (like ROGD or Blanchard's typology) but I don't think that we're going to have an easy win like with race and intelligence because the issue is a bunch of related fringe or dubious medical theories that all revolve around a single political conclusion, instead of a single obviously fringe theory.
• :That being said, I do think it would be a good idea to have RFCs on the easy stuff because it means we could skip the argument about fringe-pushing organizations like SEGM easier when they're founded in the future. Loki (talk) 23:41, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

:::One thing I noticed above that might be workable is to focus on WPATH. A consensus that they represent the mainstream on on trans science and that sweeping attacks on their legitimacy are therefore generally indicative of a fringe perspective on trans medicine would cover a lot of ground without having to go over it one by one. Fairly startlingly aggressive rejections of WPATH are also pretty common in discussions within the topic area; resolving those and ending them going forwards could turn down the temperature and focus attention on more narrow and productive discussions. --Aquillion (talk) 14:46, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

::::Yeah, that could definitely work. An agreement that WPATH is the mainstream would help a lot with dealing with these small fringe organizations. Loki (talk) 16:59, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::So the question is, should we wait until this RFC ends to hold this one? So far this RFC seems fairly one-sided; if it is possible to reach a consensus that WPATH represents the mainstream on trans medicine and that sweeping attacks on its legitimacy are generally fringe, that could greatly reduce several of the most recurring arguments in the topic area. Most of the individual arguments and disputes in this discussion are downstream of that central disagreement. -Aquillion (talk) 14:57, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

::Really opposed to this. The field is developing faster than ever. Now is not the time to draw lines more permanent than necessary. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:32, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

:::The politics is developing fast. That’s not the same thing as the science changing. The fringe theories that the SEGM promotes have received no new research backing.OsFish (talk) 05:27, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

• Responding to this wall of text from @Void if removed [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&curid=12106325&diff=1273559613&oldid=1273558779] here to avoid the RFC ballooning (this is why we have a discussion section...) I didn't mention the counter-arguments because none hold any water.

:1) WRT WP:SPLC - they are considered GREL on hategroups, including anti-LGBT groups, per WP:PARITY. VIR knows this and has argued they shouldn't be for years, but they are. Additionally, every single major medical organization in the US opposes trans healthcare bans and says they are based on misinformation. VIR is leaving out that on the one hand, you have every civil rights group and every major medical organization in the country testifying against such bans, and on the other you have SEGM and assorted fundamentalists

:2) WRT the Endocrine Society - it is more reliable than the Cass Review (See criticisms). One is a global major medical org, the other was a non-peer reviewed report that actual peer reviewed literature calls out for bullshit claims. The paper he dismissed as sociological is 1) in the world's leading transgender health journal and highly cited and 2) only one of many criticisms, many of which come from medical organizations

:3) WRT working with ACPeds, that is just one of many examples of collaboration, but VIR's argument seems to be they only occasionally co-author things with conversion therapists...

:4) WRT social contagion, our articles on transgender health care misinformation and rapid onset gender dysphoria beg to differ. He's sought to change this and consensus was heavily against him, so he knows this.

:5) See gender exploratory therapy and Cass Review#Gender exploratory therapy.

:6) VIR quotes them arguing against a ban on conversion therapy, saying it only applies to LGB people, as evidence I was wrong for noting they oppose bans on conversion therapy and claim they only apply to LGB people. He cites an opinion piece from D'Angelo, a member of SEGM and Therapy First as evidence this isn't fringe

:VIR, you have written thousands of words in the past few years across dozens of talk pages arguing these fringe things are not. Please, you said your piece, do not bludgeon this discussion. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:28, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

::@LokiTheLiar was fixing the formatting already when you asked me to thus there was an edit conflict and your ask got removed [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&curid=12106325&diff=1273564191&oldid=1273564153]. My bad, RFC's wreak havoc on my formatting when using the visual replier lol Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:34, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

::VIR added a statement about ROGD from the European Academy of Pediatrics to his message.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&curid=12106325&diff=1273564153&oldid=1273564006] Crucially, unlike SEGM, it does not say ROGD is real. It says there are {{tq|many experts and scientific bodies critical of the research and concept}} (given over 100 signed a statement that there is no evidence for it and it's pathologizing junk) while the sentence {{tq|However, others recognise the need to thoroughly investigate one of the few offered explanations for the recent demographic changes (29).}} is cited to conversion therapist Kenneth Zucker writing in the journal he's in charge of, the Archives of Sexual Behavior. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:42, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

::Don't preemptively cast aspersions about bludgeoning, and then WP:BLUDGEON my vote. Please move your replies to me to discussion and disengage. Void if removed (talk) 00:49, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

:::You left the largest post in vote section, starting with the personal attack {{tq|Every single point made by YFNS in the opening of this RFC is specious, exaggerated, misrepresentation or arguable}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&curid=12106325&diff=1273559613&oldid=1273558779] I left the much shorter comment above[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&curid=12106325&diff=1273564006&oldid=1273563676] and noted it in the vote section[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&curid=12106325&diff=1273564939&oldid=1273564848], you amended your comment with a source[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&curid=12106325&diff=1273564153&oldid=1273564006], and I updated mine to cover the new point you raised.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&curid=12106325&diff=1273565942&oldid=1273565709]

:::You left a new comment claiming {{tq|My experience is that YFNS considers any MEDRS where anyone connected to SEGM is a co-author to be unusable FRINGE.}} and listed two sources[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&curid=12106325&diff=1273570964&oldid=1273569554] I noted I've never commented on either, and neither are MEDRS anyway.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&curid=12106325&diff=1273574373&oldid=1273572941]

:::If another editor tells me that was bludgeoning, I'll disengage. If another editor tells you that was a personal attack, please strike it. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 01:08, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

::::I think there would be both advantages and disadvantages if the two of you silently(!) decided to not speak to each other for, say, the rest of the year.

::::As for personal attacks, one of the definitions we use (particularly if the community tends to agree with the speaker) means that "Your argument is ____" is never a personal attack, and that only "You are ____" would 'count'. I dislike this definition, because I think it's more complicated than that, but I mention this because trying to claim Wikipedia:No personal attacks violations is probably not a useful approach in such situations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:27, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Replying to @Evathedutch's comment: in the case of many US jurisdictions, both at the state and now at the federal level, there has been significant state capture by politicians with blatantly WP:PROFRINGE opinions both regarding trans people and many other issues. These figures have actively put their fingers on the scales in the US through the levers of state. The same could also arguably be said about the UK, a country so notoriously hostile to trans people that it earned the nickname "TERF Island". Edited to add that the known risk of state capture is a reason why we generally prefer international orgs for MEDRS. Simonm223 (talk) 02:01, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

:Yes, like I mentioned above, this is a not-uncommon problem for a wide variety of WP:FRINGE issues. Things like the efficacy of faith healing, climate change, the origins of COVID-19, the creation-evolution controversy, or, most recently, the outcome of the 2020 US election (!!) have all at one time or another had governments or governmental organizations aggressively pushing WP:FRINGE theories on them. Papers, studies, surveys and so on produced by governments should by default be presumed to reflect the views of those governments and nothing else - this is not always true, of course, and if a specific government-funded source has a strong reputation for independence, fact-checking, and accuracy then it might be reliable. But that independence is (as we have seen in other contexts) easily lost, so you can't just go "well the government supported X, therefore it's not fringe." We define fringe-ness based on the best available sources, which are generally independent academic ones, not the sorts of papers governments put out to defend their pre-determined policies. --Aquillion (talk) 02:29, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

If a critical approach to the treatment of gender dysphoria in minors by puberty blockers and surgery is fringe, then the opposite must be a medical consensus, i.e. that puberty blockers and surgery are the only way to treat gender dysphoria. But is it so? If SEGM’s critical attitude is truly fringe, why have so many developed countries adopted it as state policy? And if the scholarly evidence is supposedly so clear-cut in favor of puberty blockers and surgery as the only treatment for gender dysphoria, why did the Cass Review find the evidence to be weak? Why does the European Academy of Paediatrics state that 'The fundamental question of whether biomedical treatments (including hormone therapy) for gender dysphoria are effective remains contested'? [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38374879/] Similarly, why would the American Society of Plastic Surgeons acknowledge that "ASPS currently understands that there is considerable uncertainty as to the long-term efficacy for the use of chest and genital surgical interventions for the treatment of adolescents with gender dysphoria, and the existing evidence base is viewed as low quality/low certainty."? [https://www.plasticsurgery.org/for-medical-professionals/publications/psn-extra/news/asps-statement-to-press-regarding-gender-surgery-for-adolescents] ASPS is an important entity in this field, since the professionals it represents are the ones who are supposed to perform surgery on minors, yet they have reservations. How can anyone claim there is a definitive consensus when major medical organizations openly say otherwise? And the only reason that SEGM is being knocked by all the advocacy and WPATH activists is their criticism of certain medical transition practices of minors. This is from the [https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/12/15/skrmetti-case-youth-transition-trans-supreme-court/ recent editorial] by the Washington Post, written not by an individual journalist, but the entire Editorial Board of WaPo:

"Multiple European health authorities have reviewed the available evidence and concluded that it was “very low certainty,” “lacking” and “limited by methodological weaknesses.” Last week, Britain banned the use of puberty blockers indefinitely due to safety concerns. “Children’s healthcare must always be evidence-led,” British Health and Social Care Secretary Wes Streeting said in a press release. “The independent expert Commission on Human Medicines found that the current prescribing and care pathway for gender dysphoria and incongruence presents an unacceptable safety risk for children and young people.”"

This is what SEGM has been saying all along. As it stands, I would say that SEGM's approach is certainly more mainstream than it is fringe. Even such liberal media outlets as The New York Times and WaPo known for their support for transgender rights question the situation with puberty blockers. User's personal views on SEGM aside, I find it strange to knock them as fringe when the positions of many medical & objective sources establish otherwise. Working off of valid and independent resources is what Wikipedia provides for and is supposed to maintain. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 10:59, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

:They're an SPLC designated hate group. That's rather more telling than washington post having a credulous editorial. Simonm223 (talk) 12:19, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

::I think people are misunderstanding what “fringe” means. Being designated as a “hate group” by the SPLC does not make a group “fringe”. Spreading misinformation does not make a group “fringe”. Hate can be mainstream … misinformation can be mainstream. Blueboar (talk) 14:03, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

:::They also spread disinformation such as promoting ROGD as if that condition existed. However, also, I've contended based on the extensive arguments put forward by Sartre in Anti-Semite and Jew and then expanded upon later by many academics including Alexander Reid Ross in Against the Fascist Creep that discursive dishonesty (effectively being unreliable) is a characteristic of hate groups. Simonm223 (talk) Simonm223 (talk) 14:17, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

::::I agree with @Blueboar. This isn't really about the technical definition of FRINGE; it's about whether we hate them (and we do) and want to see their POV suppressed on wiki (and we do).

::::My bigger concern about this is that I expect it to be stretched from:

::::* SEGM is bad, so let's not cite their website

::::to:

::::* SEGM is bad, so let's not cite their website

::::* or research they've funded

::::* even if it appears in prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals

::::* or articles that quote them (unless disparagingly)

::::* or papers written by anyone who has ever belonged to them

::::* or reference works that cite them

::::* or politicians that approve of them

::::and so forth. This feels more like a damnatio memoriae exercise than a consideration of whether SEGM represents "a minority POV" or "technically, a FRINGE POV". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::IMO, this RFC is backwards.

:::::WP:FRINGE is about pseudoscientific theories, so you need to first establish what theories you're talking about and then establish whether they are fringe - and then orgs which advocate for them are fringe.

:::::This is why this issue spins out across so many topics - it encompasses multiple aspects of a contentious debate, to whit:

:::::* Rates of desistance, detransition and regret

:::::* Plausibility of social contagion

:::::* Exploratory psychotherapy as a first line treatment

:::::* The weak standard of evidence in gender medicine

:::::These are all areas of legitimate debate in MEDRS, and accusations of "fringe" and "pseudoscience" are essentially hyperbole.

:::::Even more than your anticipated stretching, I believe - based on the above discussions and months arguments about of exclusion of MEDRS because one of the co-authors is a "baddie" - that the result of this RFC will be to reason backwards from a finding that SEGM are fringe, to proof that all of the above legitimate and sourceable positions are therefore fringe too. Void if removed (talk) 18:01, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::: WP:FRINGE is not about pseudoscientific theories, although there is an overlap. Fringe theories may be pseudoscientific, and often are, but fringe theories, like, say, time slowing down and bent starlight in 1905, can be both fringe and scientific at the same time. Conversely, pseudoscientific theories like cold fusion, polywater, miasma theory, and eugenics were non-fringe, even majority-supported for a while. Mathglot (talk) 06:44, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::The primary difference is that “pseudo” is about not following standard methodology… while “fringe” is about the non-acceptance of the conclusion (regardless of methodology used).

::::::::This distinction can be seen in other academic fields (history, literary analysis, theology, linguistics, etc). Blueboar (talk) 20:58, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::@WhatamIdoing I guess one question we have to answer: does Wikipedia consider bigotry applied to science to be intrinsically pseudoscientific. I certainly hope Wikipedia does. If it does not we have big problems. Simonm223 (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::One indeed hopes that editors are decent human beings, but I'm not sure that's entirely relevant.

::::::Bigotry often leads scientific-like work into pseudoscience. See, e.g., eugenics or phrenology.

::::::But it is also possible for bigotry to motivate research that meets the ordinary standards of science. For example, bigotry is why the Thalidomide scandal happened: the ordinary scientific-minded researchers thought that pregnant women are so fragile that they should be protected from the risks of participating in a clinical trial to find out whether thalidomide was safe and effective in pregnancy. They thought that testing in pregnant women was unethical and infeasible. So they tested it in healthy young males, who were naturally not pregnant. But the work itself wasn't pseudoscientific; it was just stupid of us to say that since we didn't see many side effects in population A, then obviously it's safe to give to population B. Also, even if the stupidity had been pointed out by a certified misogynistic hate group, it was still stupid of us.

::::::Similarly, we say that the Dutch protocol tested puberty blockers in their "population A" – early pubertal kids who are not autistic, have no unmanaged psychiatric comorbidities – and we want to apply this to a "population B" of older, post-pubertal autistic teens with poorly managed anxiety and depression. We claim that proper testing in this different population is unethical. Maybe this is motivated by a bigoted belief that population B is too fragile to withstand the test, or that autistic people are too unimportant to care whether they're getting the best treatment, especially if it might imperil treatment options for non-autistic trans people. It might be stupid of us to refuse to check that population A's results also obtain in population B (spoiler: They don't. For example, once a male hits Tanner stage 5, their voice has already changed, and puberty blockers can't reverse that), but it's not pseudoscience. Also, even if the stupidity is being pointed out by a certified anti-trans hate group, it might still be stupid of us.

::::::IMO gender care medicine would benefit from some Adversarial collaboration. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::{{Tq|a bigoted belief that population B is too fragile to withstand the test,}} - the test is forcing trans kids to go through an incongruent puberty and irreversible changes.

:::::::{{tq|that autistic people are too unimportant to care whether they're getting the best treatment, especially if it might imperil treatment options for non-autistic trans people.}} - this is a patronizing strawman. Medical organizations say autistic trans people might need more support and mental health care, but being autistic shouldn't be used to argue they can't be trans or force them through additional gatekeeping. Anti-trans groups argue that autistic trans kids only think they're trans because they're autistic. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:51, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I believe that you will agree with me that a population described as {{xt|older, post-pubertal autistic teens}} refers to people who have already gone through puberty, and who therefore cannot be "forced to go through an incongruent puberty" now.

::::::::I'm less concerned about whether medical organizations say autistic trans people might need more support and more concerned about whether politicians think that studying autistic trans kids is a valuable use of scarce resources. So far, I'd say that the politicians show little concern for the well-being of this subgroup. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:23, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::Science doesn’t care about bigotry. Bigotry is a social construct, not a scientific one. Society might decide that saying “humans are mammals” is bigoted (because there are humans who believe themselves to be reptilian, and we should respect them)… science, however, will continue to classify humans as mammals. Blueboar (talk) 21:18, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Social sciences are sciences, and bigotry is indeed a construct in the social sciences. Moreover, bigotry plays out in diverse settings, including STEM fields (e.g., bigotry against students, colleagues, patients, ...; bigotry in choice and funding of research topics), so science should care about bigotry. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:52, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I think you are confusing “science” with “scientists”. Scientists should care about bigotry… but science does not. Blueboar (talk) 22:07, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::No, I'm not. On the one hand, sciences are not themselves thinking/feeling beings, so in that sense not only do the sciences not care, they cannot care. On the other hand, the sciences do not exist in the absence of people, and people's bigotry intersects scientific teaching and practice in diverse ways, some of them obvious and some of them less so. Social sciences are sciences, and some social scientists study diverse aspects of bigotry, including bigotry in the context of scientific teaching and practice. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:00, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Whether all of the social sciences are True™ sciences is not universally agreed upon fact. Specifically, there is a view among people in the hard sciences that these "soft sciences" aren't science at all, or at least that a relatively low proportion of their work is science. (Even in the hard sciences, there is a substantial amount of non-science, e.g., deciding what to name things.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

:::While one could theoretically imagine a hate group that was in accordance with mainstream science, practically speaking it's not really possible. True scientific claims are not gonna get the SPLC to label you hateful. Lots of people say that men are stronger than women, and because that's true you don't get called a hate group for saying that. Because of this, calling them a "hate group" also implies that the SPLC thinks they're wrong.

:::Of course, if you read the SPLC source it's clear that the SPLC is not just calling them a hate group, it's explicitly laying out how they advance a political agenda under the guise of science and why those pseudoscientific claims contradict actual mainstream science. You should read it, it's clearly well-researched. Loki (talk) 17:58, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

::::The SPLC is a biased source, as noted at WP:SPLC. Their opinions, however articulated, do not equate to facts. Labeling an organization as a 'hate group' is a subjective judgment rooted in advocacy perspectives, not a scientific determination. This is particularly relevant when discussing topics related to controversial social issues. Likewise your analogy to "Men stronger than women" scientific claims lacks relevance. That issue is not currently as heavily politicized as the one in question. Hence why SPLC labels SEGM as such. Moreover, The SPLC’s critique focuses on SEGM’s stance, not the methodological rigor of their scientific claims. Nonetheless, as mentioned - it's listed as a biased source, which makes its mention here unsuitable and a case of misdirection. Citing such a problematic entity in an attempt to prove that another entity is problematic or Fringe is simply misguided and lacks grounding. Keep in mind that SPLC is not MEDRS either, so even if it wasn't listed as a biased source, we cannot rely on their judgments on SEGM's medical approach. Per Wikipedia determinations, we should rely on independent, reliable sources—particularly those with subject-matter expertise—when assessing an organization’s scientific standing. Advocacy groups like the SPLC are not neutral arbiters in such discussions and should not be treated as definitive sources for determining scientific consensus. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 19:36, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::Sean, I think it's more complicated than that. We use POV as a marker for whether a group of "scientific" all the time. It usually works. If someone says that the Earth is flat, then we don't need to review "the methodological rigor of their scientific claims". We just need to know that they came up with a result that is so far from the mainstream scientific POV that it's guaranteed to be either pseudoscience or bad science.

:::::Of course, sometimes the mainstream scientific POV is wrong, and sometimes antisocial POVs can be mixed up with methodologically sound science. (See, e.g., the key research on sugar causing tooth decay: the key study was both methodologically sound science and massively unethical [feeding sticky sweets to intellectually disabled institutionalized people, stopping them from brushing their teeth, and then waiting to see how much damage it did to their teeth].) But merely focusing on a group's stance is not inherently a bad thing.

:::::Perhaps the thing for us to do is to remember that "hateful" is not the same thing as "scientifically wrong", just like "not hateful" is not the same as "scientifically correct". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:35, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

:::I'm not sure {{tq|misinformation can be mainstream}} in the sense of WP:FRINGE or WP:MAINSTREAM. Misinformation, as such, can certainly be popular, but as misinformation, I think it has to be a WP:FRINGE claim essentially by definition. jps (talk) 20:54, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

:::: At a time when certain types of misinformation appears to be believed by a significant minority of the population, misinformation very clearly does not equate to WP:FRINGE, even if it might be fringe. Mathglot (talk) 19:47, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::I'm not sure I understand your comment here. WP:FRINGE does not say anything about using the belief of significant minorities (or majorities, for that matter) of the population to determine what is or is not relevant to the guideline. Rather, it is what the reliable, independent sources say about an idea that help us decide to what extent the guideline applies and how to treat it at Wikipedia. jps (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm confused about what this RfC is meant to achieve. On the one hand, the answer to whether this group is WP:FRINGE seems obviously no, only because WP:FRINGE is about theories, and this is a group and not a theory — are there other organizations or individuals who have been deemed WP:FRINGE? At the same time, per the RfC there is already a consensus that they are not a reliable source — what more would designating them WP:FRINGE do? I would endorse Aquillion and Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ's discussion above of making specific RfCs for specific claims. I understand that is a much greater lift, but even from the evidence presented against SEGM here, it doesn't seem that each of their positions is equally WP:FRINGE. And getting consensus around specific theories would have implications for how those topics are discussed (which I take to be the intent here, though I don't think a consensus on this RfC would achieve it). Carleas (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
• :Thank you for pointing this out. I myself considered coming to the fringe notice board about SEGM, but I struggled with fringe theory vs org and I found very little precedent about how people make the case an org is or is not fringe. Nonetheless, from the starting question we are indeed talking about an org. Is this org fringe? Where else on Wikpedia have we taken an org that is t's frequently quoted by major papers and is published in major journals, and voted them fringe? Evathedutch (talk) 20:37, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
• :I believe the point is to give editors a way to exclude any source that can be connected to SEGM. If we declare the group to be WP:FRINGE, then you can look at a source and say:
• :"Well, it meets the WP:MEDRS ideal because it's a systematic review published in a top-tier peer-reviewed medical journal, it doesn't rely on studies WP:IN MICE, and it complies with all the other details – but, look, the author is associated with this Very Bad Fringe Group, so none of that actually matters. We just can't cite Very Bad Fringe Groups; it'd almost be like citing Nazi human experimentation."
• :(BTW, WP:MEDASSESS explicitly says that funders are not a reason to prefer weaker source types over stronger source types.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:46, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::In that case we are embarking on one giant OR exercise to invalidate some of the biggest newspapers and medical journals in the world. That's not supported by Wikipedia. Evathedutch (talk) 20:59, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
• :This is a very good point. WP:FRINGE applies to theories, not organizations. Which specific ideas advocated by SEGM are considered fringe? Is promoting an evidence-based approach to treating minors with dysphoria fringe? Is recommending psychotherapy as the first line of treatment—aligned with practices in the UK, Finland, and other European countries—fringe? Any RFC should focus on identifying particular ideas that are allegedly fringe. So far, there’s no clear evidence of such ideas, as SEGM’s positions are already implemented in various countries and, in many cases, reflect official health policies. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 21:09, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::They claim Rapid-onset gender dysphoria is real and oppose bans on conversion therapy for trans people. Saying bans on conversion therapy shouldn't include gender identity is FRINGE and you have presented no evidence it isn't. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:03, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::Saying that legal bans on shouldn't include doesn't sound like a claim about Wikipedia:Biomedical information, so it's not a scientific claim. How to organize legal statutes and what to call things is not something science can speak to at all.
• :::What do you think the "particular field" (as in "the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field") would be for a claim that conversion therapy should be defined as ____, or that the same statute should address sexual orientation and gender identity? Offhand, I think Queer studies for the first and Legal studies for the second, but perhaps you would have a better idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:16, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::::{{tq|Saying that legal bans on shouldn't include doesn't sound like a claim about Wikipedia:Biomedical information, so it's not a scientific claim.}} - when medical organizations are in agreement that a pseudoscientific medical practice "X" consists of "A" and "B" and should be banned, it is a scientific claim. When a small org yells from the rooftops "X" doesn't include "B", we trust the MEDORGS. It is not " and "" - according to MEDRS they are the same thing.
• ::::{{tq|What do you think the "particular field" (as in "the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field") would be for a claim that conversion therapy should be defined as ____}} - Medical organizations first and foremost. No medical organization in the world defines conversion therapy as only applying to LGB people. We have an article Medical views of conversion therapy that links to statements from ones around the world defining it as including gender identity and/or calling for its ban. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:36, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::::# When (most) medical organizations are in agreement that practice "X" consists of "A" and "B", then:
• :::::#* that's not actually a scientific claim (because the meaning of all words, including "X", are always socially constructed).
• :::::#* that doesn't mean that the legal organizations want to have a single law, "Ban of X", instead of a two separate laws, "Ban of A" and "Ban of B".
• :::::# "Medical organizations" are not a field of study.
• :::::WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:59, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
• Comment I think people should avoid strawmanning the discussion, in particular, importing grievances from discussions on talkpages for other articles. This RFC is not about whether the BMJ is a reliable source. It is not an RFC to say that any paper authored by anyone with any connection whatsoever to SEGM should be rejected as a reliable source. It is not to argue over whether the Cass report is fringe. It is not a general discussion of gender affirming medicine and its merits. Opening multiple irrelevant fronts does not help people understand the issue this RFC is specifically about.OsFish (talk) 03:47, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
• :@OsFish if it is the case that {{tq | It is not an RFC to say that any paper authored by anyone with any connection whatsoever to SEGM should be rejected as a reliable source.}}, I would suggest the RFC text be amended to make this explicitly clear. Having had dozens and dozens of discussions on unrelated pages about RS derailed because something somehow connects to SEGM, and they are allegedly FRINGE and therefore the source is too, I think your interpretation is entirely wrong - this will absolutely be the effect in practice. My no vote is entirely based on encountering this very argument more times than I can count, and being forced into endless circular arguments about SEGM that go absolutely nowhere. This RFC will simply make those arguments impossible to have, because I am convinced that once this passes (and it looks certain to) the next effect will inevitably be sanctions for WP:PROFRINGE for arguing for those sources. Void if removed (talk) 09:55, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::No, I think the RFC is fine as it is. There is no need to add straw men. You're arguing against a proposition that by your own admission has not been made on this page. In addition, WP:PROFRINGE is not about the use of certain authors. It is about the extent of scientific scrutiny and support (or rather, absence of those things) given to certain theories. If SEGM continues to be recognised as fringe, then using SEGM themselves as a source for theories (rather than a publication in MEDRS) will of course be difficult. I understand you may not like SEGM themselves being considered a bad source. But the thing is, if an editor continues to ignore consensus on an issue, it's actually standard procedure for them to be sanctioned. Is there really no better source than an organisation like SEGM for the material you think the encyclopedia should include? OsFish (talk) 11:19, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::{{tq | Is there really no better source than an organisation like SEGM for the material you think the encyclopedia should include}}
• :::I strongly disagree with this comment. I don't care about SEGM being used as a source. I have no desire to use SEGM as a source, directly, for anything, nor I don't believe have I ever argued such. None of my statements here or linked past discussions are about that.
• :::What I do care about is:
• :::* The exclusion of a relevant paper from 2019 because the author went on to become a SEGM advisor some years later
• :::* The exclusion of multiple relevant papers because one or more of the authors is associated with SEGM
• :::* The exclusion of a peer-reviewed source in the BMJ because it "platforms" SEGM
• :::* Referring to a paper's authors on talk as "conversion therapists" because one of them is associated with SEGM
• :::* The accusation that the Cass Review is fringe because one person involved in the advisory group has a relationship to SEGM or because it cited papers authored by people at SEGM, or supported viewpoints on medical matters SEGM also advances
• :::This is already happening. It has exhaustingly derailed discussions on multiple pages over the past year. I am drawing attention to all these past discussions not because this is an airing of grievances, but because the context of this RFC is plain to me, and I find the claims that this is not the context hard to credit.
• :::Stating this is about my wanting to cite SEGM directly is a straw man - I categorically do not. What I want is to not have discussions about peer-reviewed papers and the Cass Review descend over and over into arguments that go nowhere because of alleged FRINGEness-by-association that other editors repeatedly bring up.
• :::If what you say is true, then there should be no issue amending the RFC. Failing that, I can only hope you are correct, but past experience tells me otherwise. Void if removed (talk) 12:27, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::::I clearly did not say that you wanting to cite SEGM is a straw man. Please refrain from misrepresenting other editors. The only reason I discussed you wanting to cite SEGM was because I was trying to get you to focus on the topic of the RFC. I won't reply further here as I don't see any progress in this exchange.OsFish (talk) 12:58, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::{{re|OsFish}} It's not a straw man if the man is literally made of straw. Editors are already using this RfC as evidence that academic papers published in the British Medical Journal are unreliable due to association with SEGM. {{tq|It appears that the article relies significantly on letters from SEGM, which as you can see above the community agrees is an organization dedicated to pushing fringe theories. So at minimum the BMJ did not check this article closely enough for facts for it to be reliable.}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1274014996] So yes, this RfC impinges on whether the BMJ is a reliable source. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 13:42, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Splitting this out here. Does the designation of SEGM as a WP:FRINGE organization mean that an academic article published by a member of or based partly on content from the SEGM can also be WP:FRINGE? Prompted by [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1274014996 this discussion below in which an editor asserted a BMJ article is unreliable because it's based on letters from SEGM.] Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 13:47, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

:1) When RS say NARTH, the American College of Pediatricians, or SEGM say a real WP:MEDORG is wrong - per WP:FRINGE we don't include that in medical articles, or the MEDORG's article.

:2) SEGM doesn't tend to publish RS - it is well documented that they mostly write letters to the editor to launder their opinions as more scientifically backed than they are

:3) That author has been criticized by the British Medical Association, Royal College of Surgeons LGBT chapter, and the UK's LGBT doctors association GLADD. You have consistently failed to address that point. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:33, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

::@Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist, I'd appreciate your answering the question: what does the designation of SEGM as a WP:FRINGE organization mean? What is the purpose of this RfC? FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Well for one it would mean people wouldn't have to waste time arguing about whether SEGM editorials were due in various articles. Simonm223 (talk) 16:58, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

::::If that's the intent, then the RfC should make that clear. Is there any other intended result? Also, if "fringe organization" simply means "an organization promoting fringe theory X" (or perhaps fringe theories (pl.) X, Y and Z), then it seems to me that an editorial advocating X is already guaranteed to be undue in most articles, by virtue of X being a fringe theory. I don't see what the added value is of designating the organization to be a fringe organization. And of course it's possible for an organization to promote multiple ideas, some of which are fringe theories and some of which aren't, and if they've written an editorial about their non-fringe ideas, then that editorial might be due. You may be interested in the discussion that WhatamIdoing started about whether a FRINGEORG section should be added to WP:FRINGE, and if so, what it would say. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::The short version is that SEGM doesn't just advocate one fringe theory, they advocate all sorts of misinformation about trans issues such that it'd be very hard to do RFCs on all of them. That's why the topics here are about organizations, not specific theories. Trust us, we'd like to if we could. Loki (talk) 18:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

::You're evading the point. Here's the article from the British Medical Journal: [https://www.bmj.com/content/387/bmj.q2227] It is described as {{tq|Provenance: Commissioned; externally peer reviewed.}} Using that article as an example, can you explain how SEGM's designation as a WP:FRINGE organization impacts an academic article's reliability?Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 16:57, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

:::It very obviously is not and cannot be "peer reviewed", because it's journalism, not an academic paper. It may have gone through an editor but that makes it exactly the same as any other article in any newspaper.

:::As for why it impacts reliability: if an academic article cited the National Institute of Homoeopathy favorably and without any caveats I think you too would have serious concerns about it. Loki (talk) 17:33, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

::::So you're confirming that if any academic article cites SEGM favourably and without criticizing it, that makes said article unreliable.

::::It's not our job to decide homeopathy is pseudoscientific and reject academic articles on that. It's to look at medically reliable sources to determine if homeopathy is pseudoscientific. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 17:50, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::WP:AGF is so far out the window here I don't even know what to say but that you should cease this unproductive and increasingly tendentious line of questioning. Simonm223 (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::Yeah that is becoming quite striking to me as well, it seems like the good faith assumptions are really running out much faster on one side of this argument than the other. I do not know if it is specifically because of the topic at hand, but it is starting to look more like an attempt to poison an RfC not going in a preferred direction than to engage in productive discussion at this point. Choucas Bleu 🐦‍⬛ 22:53, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Chess, Loki is pointing that the article in question is not an "academic article." That's why they said "it's journalism, not an academic paper." Please pay attention to what someone is actually saying instead of jumping to unwarranted conclusions. The BMJ publishes a variety of works; they list some of them [https://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-authors/article-types here]. Some of what they publish is not peer-reviewed and not "academic." FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:13, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::I'm paying attention to what they are saying. What they appear to be saying is that the article is less reliable because it cited SEGM "favorably and without any caveats". Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 18:22, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::You're paying attention to the part you want, and ignoring the part that's inconvenient to your argument, and you're making false claims based on things they did not say or imply. Do you see why your claim "So you're confirming that if any academic article cites SEGM favourably ..." is false? Loki did not say or imply anything about an academic article and so could not possibly be confirming something about an academic article. Loki made a claim about a news article that was not peer-reviewed. Why is it so hard for you to retract your false claims? It's not good to make false claims about other editors, and when someone points out to you that your claim was false, you should admit that it was false, not continue on the mistaken path that you started down. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:31, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::{{re|FactOrOpinion}} OK, sure, let's delete the word "academic". Is an article (of any type) written by a member of or based partly on content from the SEGM also WP:FRINGE? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 18:40, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Why are you asking me? (Are you still making false assumptions about me, despite my pointing out here that they were baseless?) More importantly, why have you still not retracted any of your false claims? This is not good faith behavior on your end. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::These are 2 questions:

:::::::::# {{tq|Is an article (of any type) written by a member of ... SEGM also WP:FRINGE?}} - Can you find a single one about trans healthcare that isn't? I have seen many and every single one promotes one or more FRINGE theories. Please keep in mind SEGM has been called out for writing op-eds, letters to editors, editorials, primary pieces, and etc where they can make FRINGE claims without much oversight.

:::::::::# {{tq|Is an article (of any type) ... based partly on content from the SEGM also WP:FRINGE?}} - This includes every source that's critical of them and calls them out for pseudoscience and/or bigoted bullshit so is a bit vague. I'm assuming you mean "articles that credibly quote SEGM as experts" - in which case, see my earlier response to you, that {{tq|When RS say NARTH, the American College of Pediatricians, or SEGM say a real WP:MEDORG is wrong - per WP:FRINGE we don't include that in medical articles, or the MEDORG's article}} (though we can, and do, say it in the FRINGE ORG's article)

:::::::::Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:54, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Then I'm clearly not strawpersoning the argument at all. You really are advocating that any source that bases its work on SEGM in a way that doesn't reject them is WP:FRINGE. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:45, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::When did I say that? I myself have cited many news articles that have credulously quoted SEGM. Even scholarly ones. But the vast majority of scholarly articles (from medical to social sciences) and news articles about them are about how they are known for misinformation / claiming all the medical associations in a country are wrong and they know the truth.

:::::::::::Can you give examples of {{tq|any source that bases its work on SEGM in a way that doesn't reject them}} you're worried will be deemed FRINGE by association? Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:22, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::The British Medical Journal source I previously linked above and that prompted this entire discussion is an example of a source that I'm worried will be deemed WP:FRINGE by association: [https://www.bmj.com/content/387/bmj.q2227] Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:49, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::1) I have cited that author, and I believe even article, myself - we use things on context

:::::::::::::2) You have repeatedly ignored the fact that the 3 British WP:MEDORGS have criticized that author for bias and selective use of evidence, including the British Medical Association - this author is known to be biased, at the least

:::::::::::::3) WP:NFRINGE "Even reputable news outlets have been known to publish credulous profiles of fringe theories and their proponents."

:::::::::::::4) Per WP:ONEWAY we can put "SEGM thinks the WHO is wrong" in SEGM's article, but probably not the WHOS. Same with "SEGM thinks kids are being rushed into gender-affirming care" - SEGM's article, definitely not a WP:BIOMED article like gender-affirming care.

:::::::::::::This source is a biased author, known for being credulous to FRINGE views/groups, reporting on how a group opposes the World Health Organization. We can still use it, it's mostly factual: "MEDORG said A; SEGM said B; etc". But it's not a scholarly work / academic article putting forth some kind of medical argument - it's a news article reporting on what others have said. We always use all sources carefully, in context, in consideration of WP:NPOV/WP:FRINGE/WP:DUE - and this is complicated/problematic source - but usable.

:::::::::::::* How would you want to use it in a way that you worry you wouldn't be able to?

:::::::::::::Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 00:44, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::{{re|Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist}} If you're saying that the SEGM's status as a fringe organization wouldn't affect the reliability of that source, then we're not disagreeing. I understand that there are many factors that go into judging a source. I don't believe "this source cited SEGM" should be one of those factors. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 14:52, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::@Chess I do think we're in agreement.

:::::::::::::::I'll reiterate citing SEGM doesn't affect this source much, this is an author who has specifically been called out for transphobic bias and selective use of evidence by 3 MEDORGS, which is a greater concern - and like any source its use is based on WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. Fundamentally, this article is about "advocacy group thinks MEDORG is wrong" while superficially not taking sides, in which case WP:BIASED, WP:NFRINGE, WP:ONEWAY, WP:BIOMED, and WP:MEDRS still apply to how/where we cover that.

:::::::::::::::The biggest point of confusion here is you've said "academic articles" while the BMJ piece is a news article (one of the more prestigious medical news outlets, but a news article still). Academic articles mentioning SEGM, that aren't primary / opinion pieces by SEGM members, criticize it (a hallmark of FRINGE that it's adherent's views only survive op-eds and not peer reviewed literature) - so the whole fear of "guilt by association" is based on 1) hypothetical academic articles being silenced for being too nice to them and 2) a misunderstanding of how WP:FRINGE works and interacts with our RS policies.

:::::::::::::::Andrew Wakefield's Lancet paper isn't WP:FRINGE (it's not a WP:MEDRS as it's primary though) - his claim "vaccines cause autism" or claims "Wakefield's work proved vaccines cause autism" are. The hypothetical "Vaccines cause autism foundation" could be described as FRINGE as a shorthand for "this only exists to push fringe views, we don't put their opinions in medical articles even when RS report them, and their founder claiming in a primary source that vaccines cause autism doesn't weigh at all". Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:37, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Chess, that BMJ article is currently used in two articles, here and here. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:08, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::{{tq | Loki made a claim about a news article that was not peer-reviewed.}}

::::::::@FactOrOpinion It is peer-reviewed. It says so on the page, Chess quoted it as {{tq | Provenance: Commissioned; externally peer reviewed}}. Loki incorrectly asserted without any evidence at all that it was not, simply because it is a journalistic source, but [https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n1771 BMJ Investigations pieces are peer-reviewed].

::::::::{{quote frame | A hallmark of our work is to combine investigative journalism with peer review and academic analysis. Investigations at The BMJ undergo the same rigorous pre-publication processes as scientific articles, a standard that our readership demands. As well as working with experienced journalists we draw on the resources of our clinical team, statisticians, and community of peer reviewers.}}

::::::::You provided a list of submission-based article types to supposedly back this up, but that's not the BMJ Investigations unit.

::::::::All Chess said at the start was "article" and "peer-reviewed", which was derailed by a false claim by Loki that it wasn't peer-reviewed.

::::::::It should not take a comment chain this deep and this intemperate to establish that a source - which plainly says it was peer-reviewed and where this was quoted at the top of the thread and which anyone familiar with the BMJ Investigations unit knows to be peer-reviewed - is actually peer-reviewed.

::::::::So the question stands whether a peer-reviewed source in a top medical journal is usable or not because it quotes SEGM favourably?

::::::::This is important because we use the balance of coverage like this to demonstrate that there are different perspectives, ie some sources call an organisation X, others call them Y. If OTOH, we decide FRINGE precedes the coverage and discredits the source, that becomes an inescapable ratchet of source exclusion.

::::::::So if SPLC call them a hub of pseudoscience and the BMJ call them {{tq | a group of researchers and clinicians that has pushed for systematic reviews and an evidence-based approach}}, deciding the latter source is in some way unreliable because it isn't damning enough is no way to ascertain NPOV. Void if removed (talk) 13:30, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::The BMJ page you just linked to is paywalled, but I have no reason to doubt that your quote is correct. "[Block's 10/30/24 article] is peer-reviewed." My mistake, I shouldn't have referred to it as "a news article that was not peer-reviewed." And Loki's mistake. And Chess's mistakes for repeatedly making false claims about what Loki said (sprinkled throughout this RfC, several of which I pointed out to him and asked him to retract, also noting that he'd falsely presumed something about me that I'd neither said nor implied), though in this case Chess was correct in noting that this news column was peer-reviewed. It's striking to me that in all of this, you choose to point out my mistake while being entirely silent about Chess having repeatedly made false claims about what Loki said throughout this RfC.

:::::::::"You provided a list of submission-based article types to supposedly back this up, but that's not the BMJ Investigations unit." First, that list is not limited to "submission-based articles." Second, I specifically went searching for information about the News Features and failed to find any; the closest I found was a statement that "Editorials, news items, analysis articles, and features written by The BMJ's own editors do not undergo external peer review" [https://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/publishing-model here]. Not sure how you expected me to find a pay-walled paragraph listed under "BMJ Student," not even listed under News. The fact that the BMJ doesn't make any statement about their news articles in their list of article types is a lacuna on their end. Third, I didn't link to that list to back up my mistaken claim that this specific article wasn't peer-reviewed; I linked to it to back up my claim that not all of BMJ's articles are peer-reviewed or academic, which is true.

:::::::::"All Chess said at the start was 'article' and 'peer-reviewed', which was derailed by a false claim by Loki that it wasn't peer-reviewed." No, Chess said at the start that it was an "an academic article," but not that it was peer-reviewed. It's not an academic article; it's a news article. "this was quoted at the top of the thread" It wasn't; it was quoted 3 hours after the comment at the top of the thread. "anyone familiar with the BMJ Investigations unit knows [them] to be peer-reviewed." I'm not familiar with them, and most are paywalled, so there also was no way for me to become familiar with them when I went on my search to find out how the BMJ treats its News articles. That said, it was still a mistake on my end not to see that the specific article under question was peer-reviewed. "So the question stands ..." And someone else will have to answer that, since I've made absolutely zero comments in this RfC that are in any way related to that question. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:12, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::{{tq | No, Chess said at the start}}

::::::::::My apologies, I was referring to the start of the contentious Chess/Loki exchange, not the top of the thread.

::::::::::My point was simply that that exchange started with a quote directly from the article itself that it was peer-reviewed. In response, Loki flatly denied that a direct quote from the source meant what it meant and simply stated it wasn't. Forgive me if my charity is at a low ebb when I see that sort of thing.

::::::::::{{tq | And someone else will have to answer that}}

::::::::::And I hope they do, because to me it really is the important question, especially in light of the opener's clarifying statement "{{tq | I mean an organization that only exists to promote FRINGE viewpoints about trans healthcare and whose members generally promote FRINGE viewpoints.}}"

::::::::::So, when this RFC passes, exactly what connection between a peer-reviewed publication and SEGM will net an accusation of PROFRINGE if you attempt to cite it?

::::::::::Sole authorship? Co-authorship? Funding? Citing them in a paper? Having previously cited them in a different paper? Being cited by them? Joining SEGM some years after publication? Agreeing with SEGM's theoretical standpoint on some specific issue?

::::::::::Because my experience of arguments about SEGM's FRINGEness is that they invariably start when an academic source is raised (not an editorial or popular press or anything self-published), someone declares there is some connection to SEGM ergo it is fringe, an intractable endless debate ensues ranging through a whole bunch of contentious medical topics, nobody changes their mind, no consensus is reached, and the source ends up excluded.

::::::::::Is the aim of this RFC to prevent those discussions ever happening again and skip straight to the exclusion part? Void if removed (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Nothing is stopping you from asking Loki to correct their false statement about it not being peer-reviewed. But I'll note again that Chess has also made false statements, such as saying to Loki "So you're confirming that if any academic article cites SEGM favourably and without criticizing it, that makes said article unreliable," when Loki's claim was not about an academic article in the first place and so could not possibly confirm "that if any academic article cites SEGM favourably and without criticizing it, that makes said article unreliable." As for your questions, I'm not in a position to answer any of them; if they're only meant rhetorically, OK, but if you meant any of them as actual questions, I have no idea why you're asking me. Re: your concern, you may want to post a comment in the RfC section (perhaps by amending your No !vote) making explicit that the RfC is not asking about peer-reviewed papers of any sort and that you don't want the RfC's results to be used as if it had asked about that. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:48, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::I maintain that "peer review" is not a concept that makes sense for journalism. My assertion was not that the BMJ didn't send this article to a panel of experts but that doing that is no different from the sort of editorial review any other newspaper would do and does not constitute the same thing that "peer review" means in the case of a scientific article.

::::::::::::If I send a physics paper out to a physics journal, I expect they'll have a panel of physicists to check my work. If they sent it to a panel of sociologists, that would not be "peer-review" in a meaningful sense. Investigative journalism is its own field of expertise and checking it with medical experts doesn't do anything to verify the actual journalism. I would not expect a panel of doctors to catch "this organization is an advocacy group and is therefore not reliable for factual claims" because that's not a medical claim in itself. Loki (talk) 18:47, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Despite your claim that "It may have gone through an editor but that makes it exactly the same as any other article in any newspaper," newspapers generally don't submit articles to external reviewers prior to printing them, so it clearly isn't exactly the same. The external reviewers could easily include people with expertise in medical journalism. (Do they include such people? Neither of us knows.) And of course there are medical experts who'd definitely know that SEGM is an advocacy group, such as the medical faculty who wrote [https://medicine.yale.edu/lgbtqi/clinicalcare/gender-affirming-care/biased-science/#appendix-a this]. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:55, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::@FactOrOpinion wrt "Not sure how you expected me to find...", the page Void linked is literally the first result for a Google search on ["BMJ investigations" peer-reviewed]. Wrt paywalled, the BMJ is available through The Wikipedia Library. -- Colin°^Talk 18:24, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::I wasn't looking for "BMJ Investigations," as I had no idea that that was an ongoing series of news articles. Nor was I using Google, just searching the BMJ website using its own search function. Thanks for the heads up re: the TWL; Aquillion also let me know. I only created an account for that recently, and while TWL search pulls up the article, it doesn't link to it; if I use TWL to go to the BMJ home page, the BMJ consistently rejects my attempts to use its search mechanism; and if I use the BMJ article's regular URL after going to the BMJ homepage via TWL, the BMJ again won't give me access to that article. I'm not sure what the problem is there. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:02, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::@FactOrOpinion I'm getting that right now too. I get a Cloudfare page verifying I'm human and no further. I guess I'm not human enough. -- Colin°^Talk 18:22, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you Chess for pointing this out. Youth gender medicine is a hotly debated and rapidly evolving field. Part of this evolution may play out in well established medical journals - that's their role in scientific discovery. NEJM, JAMA, BMJ....they all publish on various sides of this topic, we should not interfere with that, that would be dangerous. Evathedutch (talk) 23:02, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

::The comment you are replying to is already missing the point to a clear enough degree that it has been comprehensively pointed out in the discussion just above (without even talking about the charged section title), but it does not even seem like you are even replying to it. The fact that the overall topic is "hotly debated" and "rapidly evolving" has absolutely nothing to do with WP:FRINGE. I have no idea what you even mean by "interference" with publication in scientific journals, or what here could be qualified of "dangerous". Choucas Bleu 🐦‍⬛ 23:31, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Breaking this out in order to better define this point. Is "gender exploratory therapy" as defined by SEGM the same as what various national medical authorities define as "psychotherapy" (in the context of pediatric gender medicine)?

This has been alleged by several editors to date - i.e. {{tq|Psychotherapy is the first line of treatment in the UK, Finland and other countries.}} So far, the main piece of evidence in support of that contention appears to be the oft-mentioned [https://undark.org/2024/05/20/pediatric-transgender-care-contentious-segm/ Undark article], which allows SEGM to claim alignment with health authorities in Finland, and some other European countries. {{tq|Other critics of the group point out there isn’t much evidence to back up psychotherapy. SEGM, citing guidelines in Finland and elsewhere in Europe, has described this as the preferred treatment for younger people.}}

However, that article is not a peer-reviewed source and seems to make a range of basic errors; i.e. the U.S. is effectively described as the country with the most permissive approach to transgender healthcare and as the originator on it, in statements like {{tq|Following the U.S. approach, puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones were widely available in much of Europe until just recently}} or {{tq|Even as some scholars and activists seek to label SEGM a pseudoscientific hate group, it has inarguably brought together clinicians and researchers who believe that the United States is becoming an outlier in its approach to pediatric gender medicine}}. This is in contradiction to RS like the [https://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/2024-11/Impact-of-Puberty-Blockers-in-Gender-Dysphoric-Adolescents-evidence-brief.pdf NZ Ministry of Health] which note that the current protocol for gender-affirming healthcare began in The Netherlands - an acknowledgement also made by SEGM-affiliated sources such as a [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0092623X.2022.2150346 commentary paper] by several of their co-founders. Likewise, accepting the group's argument of the (pre-2025) U.S. "becoming an outlier" at face value on the basis of Finland, the U.K. and some other European countries - while ignoring explicit support for puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones in countries as different as [https://liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/heq.2023.0258 Thailand], [https://www.spotlightnsp.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/sahcs-gahc-guidelines-expanded-version_oct-20213.pdf South Africa], [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10448553/ Turkiye] and [https://www.endocrinepractice.org/article/S1530-891X(20)35090-4/abstract Israel], which again reveals the lack of rigour on the part of Undark author and editors.

As such, I would like to see focused discussion on this topic specifically. Some points of interest:

• Do we have an independent medical source which provides a definition of "gender exploratory therapy"? In particular, a source besides those which say it is equivalent to conversion therapy? Of note is that even SEGM members themselves appear to struggle to draw a clear line between the two - after all, a [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/26344041241269298 recent paper by SEGM authors] notes that laws against conversion therapy also tend to prohibit their definition of psychotherapy. {{tq|In a parallel process, “conversion therapy” laws, passed in many countries, closed access to exploratory psychotherapy that enables exploration of gender-identity issues from a neutral therapeutic stance.}} What I don't seem to find in that paper is an example of legal language which would prohibit conversion therapy but not "exploratory therapy". [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11201722/ Another SEGM-affiliated commentary] cited here claims that {{tq|Because PPGD does not have the intention of purposely changing a patients’ gender identity, it should not be considered conversion therapy within the Criminal Code definition.}} However, "intent" of a therapy cannot be separated from the intent of individual practitioners, and it is hard to see how such a definition could be legally sound.

• Is there an independent medical source which compares [https://www.therapyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/TherapyFirst_Clinical_Guide.pdf the SEGM therapy guide] with the gender psychotherapy guidelines of any country?

• According to multiple Yes voters here, "gender exploratory therapy" is equivalent to conversion therapy, at least if undertaken in the absence of other interventions. (i.e. I note that while Denmark is occasionally cited as a "cautious" country aligned with SEGM, the definition of "gender identity exploration" provided by [https://ugeskriftet.dk/videnskab/sundhedsfaglige-tilbud-til-born-og-unge-med-konsubehag this Danish peer-reviewed source] appears to be dependent on the application of puberty blockers: {{tq|Der kan behandles med GnRH-analog fra Tanner-stadie II/III, hvorved puberteten bremses, med det formål at give tid til udforskning af kønsidentiteten uden yderligere udvikling af sekundære kønskarakteristika}} which apparently translates to {{tq|Treatment with GnRH analog from Tanner stage II/III can be used to delay puberty to allow time for gender identity exploration without further development of secondary sex characteristics}}.) If so, how many countries can be said to engage in transgender conversion therapy today according to WP:MEDRS? For simplicity, this ought to include only the countries which formally recognize the transgender identity (i.e. do not criminalize gender transition) in the first place. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 10:39, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

:Conversion therapy#Gender exploratory therapy - independent RS call it conversion therapy. There is no evidence it is effective, and MEDORGs, when they do comment on it, criticize the hell out of it and/or just call it conversion therapy.[https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/transgender-gender-dysphoria-treatment] The closest thing to a country endorsing it are the Cass Review's final/interim report, which are not WP:MEDRS and have been heavily criticized Cass Review#Criticisms including/especially for Cass Review#Gender exploratory therapy. See also Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine, Genspect, and Therapy First.

:{{tq|Do we have an independent medical source which provides a definition of "gender exploratory therapy"?}} Yes {{tq|In particular, a source besides those which say it is equivalent to conversion therapy?}} No.

:{{tq|Is there an independent medical source which compares the SEGM therapy guide with the gender psychotherapy guidelines of any country?}} Not to my knowledge

:{{tq|If so, how many countries can be said to engage in transgender conversion therapy today according to WP:MEDRS?}} Technically all of them, but if you're referring to governmental/health org policy - either none or just the UK.

:Of note, only one MEDORG has ever endorsed GET - The UKCP, which 1) did so saying the needed to protect gender-critical views 2) Was the only MEDORG in the country to withdraw from the Memorandum of Understanding on Conversion Therapy signed by all other MEDORGS 3) was criticized by the other MEDORGS for this and 4) caused 10% of the membership to sign an open letter criticizing the decision and 20% of members to call for the board's removal. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

::The fact that the U.S. is becoming a global outlier on this issue is not just Undark’s perspective. The Wall Street Journal, which is a RS, reports the same: [https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-becomes-transgender-care-outlier-as-more-in-europe-urge-caution-6c70b5e0]. The UK [https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria/treatment/], Finland [https://palveluvalikoima.fi/documents/1237350/22895008/Summary_minors_en+(1).pdf/fa2054c5-8c35-8492-59d6-b3de1c00de49/Summary_minors_en+(1).pdf] and Sweden [https://www.socialstyrelsen.se/globalassets/sharepoint-dokument/artikelkatalog/kunskapsstod/2023-1-8330.pdf] prioritize psychological support over medical interventions as the first step, including gender exploratory therapy. For instance, Swedish guidelines recommend "offering psychosocial support for the unconditional exploration of gender identity during the diagnostic assessment." The question is, can we label the healthcare system of such an advanced country as Sweden fringe? Or healthcare systems of other European states mentioned above? If SEGM calls for a similar approach to that of these countries, it cannot be considered a fringe stance. JonJ937 (talk) 16:14, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

:::@JonJ937, earlier you correctly pointed out that "This board is about fringe theories," yet you're now asking YFNS questions like "So you are saying that Sweden is fringe?" and "can we label the healthcare system of such an advanced country as Sweden fringe?" It's questionable whether it makes sense to label an organization as fringe (that's currently being discussed at WT:FT), but it makes absolutely no sense to characterize an entire country or a country's healthcare system as fringe. Focus on the specific theory that you're questioning, and avoid equating it with a country or a healthcare system. WP:FT: "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. For example, fringe theories in science depart significantly from mainstream science and have little or no scientific support." Is the question "Is gender exploratory therapy a fringe psychological approach?" If not, just say what you think the question is, and what you consider the relevant field to be. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:00, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

:::1) The WSJ doesn't mention "therapy", "psychotherapy", or "gender exploratory therapy" once.[https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-becomes-transgender-care-outlier-as-more-in-europe-urge-caution-6c70b5e0]

:::2) That NHS link does not say therapy/psychotherapy/GET is required for transition and says hormones can be given from around 16yrs old +.[https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria/treatment/]

:::3) Finland allows for transition of minors based on {{tq|thorough, case-by-case consideration}}. It does not mandate psychotherapy but says {{tq|Consultation with a child or youth psychiatrist and the necessary psychiatric treatment and psychotherapy should be arranged locally according to the level of treatment needed. If a child or young person experiencing gender-related anxiety has other simultaneous psychiatric symptoms requiring specialised medical care, treatment according to the nature and severity of the disorder must be arranged within the services of their own region, as no conclusions can be drawn on the stability of gender identity during the period of disorder caused by a psychiatric illness with symptoms that hamper development.}} It does not endorse Gender exploratory therapy, or mandate psychotherapy for gender - it says it should be provided to address psychiatric symptoms unrelated to gender if they exist.[https://palveluvalikoima.fi/documents/1237350/22895008/Summary_minors_en+(1).pdf/fa2054c5-8c35-8492-59d6-b3de1c00de49/Summary_minors_en+(1).pdf]

:::4) Sweden said {{tq|Offer psychosocial support for unconditional exploration of gender identity during the diagnostic assessment. As in 2015, the National Board of Health and Welfare emphasises exploration as a prerequisite for good and safe care}}[https://www.socialstyrelsen.se/globalassets/sharepoint-dokument/artikelkatalog/kunskapsstod/2023-1-8330.pdf] It should be noted, these were non-binding recommendations, not the official policy of a MEDORG.

:::5) The WPATH SOC8 recommendations for adolescents say {{tq|We recommend health care professionals working with gender diverse adolescents facilitate the exploration and expression of gender openly and respectfully so that no one particular identity is favored ... [Health Care Providers] working with adolescents should promote supportive environments that simultaneously respect an adolescent’s affirmed gender identity and also allows the adolescent to openly explore gender needs}}[https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/26895269.2022.2100644]

:::6) Our coverage of Gender exploratory therapy notes that gender-affirming care already entails non-judgemental client-led exploration, as opposed to coerced.

:::So yeah Gender exploratory therapy, which pre-supposes that gender dysphoria is caused by mental illnesses or trauma or other such nonsense, is different that the client-led exploration that WP:MEDORGs and WP:MEDRS recommend. None of the sources you provided endorse "gender exploratory therapy". Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 00:32, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

::::Just to comment in support of YFNS and to help bring (I hope) more clarity: those who argue against conversion therapy bans because they prevent "exploratory therapy" tend to directly or indirectly imply that mainstream gender affirming approaches involve no exploration of gender identity but consist instead of doctors simply doling out puberty blockers and hormones without much thought. That is not the case, as YFNS shows. "Affirmative" does not mean a conveyor belt of doctors saying "Yes you're trans, here's some pills". Exploratory therapy in affirmative care is about supportively exploring the patient's situation without contradicting them or telling them how they should be. On the other hand, "exploratory therapy" directed towards discouraging medical transition is conversion therapy. It is when there is clinical pressure not to transition. Because it is a policy where support for transition is the last resort, a figleaf is offered where practitioners say that of course for some people, transitioning is the right option. That doesn't detract from it being conversion therapy. It is like a homeopathist saying that homeopathy cannot be pseudomedicine because of course some conventional medicines also work. OsFish (talk) 05:12, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

:I created User:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist/Gender exploratory therapy with a sourcing table that outlines how GET is treated across literature (as conversion therapy). The few sources that claim otherwise are almost entirely 1) conversion therapists and/or 2) members of Genspect/SEGM/Therapy First (known for being a hate group in 3 trenchcoats to turn the little rascals on their head). It was based off User:Void if removed/sandbox/Gender exploratory therapy but included more sources, noted when the person cited was SEGM, and put them in chronological order. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 04:37, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you. That looks like quite a complete list, and I see that it includes your commentary. I especially appreciated the quote you highlighted: "Terms such as ‘affirmative’ and ‘exploratory’ approaches have been weaponised to the extent that it is difficult to find any neutral terminology." I've experienced that difficulty! The main thing that strikes me from seeing all of these papers together is how staggeringly new they all are. I had no idea that this subject hadn't even begun medical publication until 2017! Let's get back together in a couple of decades and decide then whether there are fringe theories here. Davemc0 (talk) 05:37, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

:::@Davemc0, you said

:::: "The main thing that strikes me from seeing all of these papers together is how staggeringly new they all are. I had no idea that this subject hadn't even begun medical publication until 2017! Let's get back together in a couple of decades and decide then whether there are fringe theories here."

:::[https://web.archive.org/web/20170801212510/https://store.samhsa.gov/shin/content//SMA15-4928/SMA15-4928.pdf A professional consensus statement in 2015] categorically rejected gender conversion therapy. Bans were already coming into place. In [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1275444543 another comment on this page] made just over 12 hours ago, you stated that there needed to be "two hundred years of medical research and practice" before any medical view on a treatment should be accepted. Now with a different medical issue, you say it's a "couple of decades". Are you sure these time frames are based in recognised scientific practice, or are they stated in order to put evidence in each case conveniently out of reach? OsFish (talk) 06:45, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

:The "SEGM Therapy Guide" you attached was not published by SEGM. It's by a separate organization with a different mission. They source one graph to SEGM and they thank SEGM for support. Orgs don't usually thank themselves when they produce an artifact. There are a lot of distinct organizations with various touch points to the field of youth gender medicine. It is inaccurate and could be misleading to call it "SEGM Therapy Guide" Evathedutch (talk) 19:52, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

FactOrOpinion made a fair point. It was a poor choice of wording on my part. I should not have asked whether the healthcare system of Sweden was fringe. Indeed, as FactOrOpinion suggested, the correct question for this discussion should be "Is gender exploratory therapy a fringe psychological approach?" My question is, can we claim that Swedish health care authorities promote fringe theories? If we say that gender exploration therapy is fringe and is the same as conversion therapy, then that means that the Swedish authorities support fringe theories. That is too strong claim to make. And the guidelines that I cited are the official Swedish policy. See the [https://www.socialstyrelsen.se/globalassets/sharepoint-dokument/artikelkatalog/kunskapsstod/2023-1-8330.pdf Summary of national guidelines] Looking over at the Finnish guidelines, which are provided by a WP:MEDORG, they say pretty much the same thing and they recommend something similar to the gender exploration therapy. Quote: "If a young person experiencing gender-related anxiety has experienced or is simultaneously experiencing psychiatric symptoms requiring specialised medical care, a gender identity assessment may be considered if the need for it continues after the other psychiatric symptoms have ceased and adolescent development is progressing normally. In this case, a young person can be sent by the specialised youth psychiatric care in their region for an extensive gender identity study by the TAYS or HUS research group on the gender identity of minors, which will begin the diagnostic studies. Based on the results of the studies, the need for and timeliness of medically justified treatments will be assessed individually." I think claiming consensus here is too premature, as there is an ongoing debate worldwide. It is not our job to take sides in a scientific debate, our job here is to accurately report all the existing viewpoints. Otherwise we may end up accusing healthcare policies of certain countries of engaging in conversion therapy and that is certainly a step too far. It should also be mentioned that gender exploratory therapy is just one of the therapy types supported by SEGM, they are generally in favor of psychotherapy as the first line treatment. So another question should also be, is psychotherapy as the initial step of treatment a fringe method? JonJ937 (talk) 10:37, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

:If your question is "Is gender exploratory therapy a fringe psychological approach?", then the first step should be to define "gender exploratory therapy" clearly, in order to assess whether a given psychological approach does/doesn't constitute gender exploratory therapy. You might start by quoting some MEDRS sources that use that term. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

::I believe the question could also be framed in a broader context: Is psychotherapy as the first step in treating gender dysphoria in children considered a fringe approach? SEGM does not advocate for a single type of therapy but views exploratory therapy as one of the potentially helpful methods for addressing the condition. Regarding the exploratory therapy in particular, the United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy (UKCP) has issued guidance stating: "Exploratory therapy should not in any circumstances be confused with conversion therapy, which seeks to change or deny a person’s sexual orientation and/or gender identity." [https://www.psychotherapy.org.uk/news/ukcp-guidance-regarding-gender-critical-views/] UKCP describes exploratory therapy as:

::"Such therapy explores the presenting issues through open-ended discussion, and is conducted without any preconceptions or pre-decided theoretical framework regarding the person’s gender identity. 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’." The quote from Cass review mentioned by UKCP could be found here: [https://cass.independent-review.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/CassReview_Final.pdf]

::Another definition is in this peer reviewed article:

::"In exploratory psychotherapy, the young person and therapist work together to understand the origins of the young person’s perceived difficulties—feelings, thoughts, symptoms, behaviors—in order to improve relationships and quality of life. A core aspect of exploratory psychotherapy is neutrality: The therapist maintains a curious, observing stance and refrains from imposing their own values or agenda on the young person. The therapy aims to empower the young person (and their family) with a good understanding of the factors contributing to their distress, coupled with a good understanding of the potential treatment options (and their outcomes). In this way, exploratory psychotherapy from a neutral therapeutic stance supports the individual’s autonomy". [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/26344041241269298]

::Also, regarding psychotherapy as the initial step of treatment, this a very recent decision by the Italian healthcare authorities. The November 2024 guidance of Italy's National Bioethics Committee (CNB) states that puberty blockers should only be provided after the documented failure of psychotherapy or psychiatric interventions and in the context of proper research trials. [https://bioetica.governo.it/media/ymhlpqt4/abstract-triptorelina.pdf] JonJ937 (talk) 10:25, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

:::"Is psychotherapy as the first step in treating gender dysphoria in children considered a fringe approach?" is not the same question as "Is gender exploratory therapy a fringe psychological approach?", since "gender exploratory therapy" has a narrower meaning than "psychotherapy." FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:24, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

::::Yes, that’s correct. Gender exploratory therapy is one of the psychotherapy methods proposed as an initial treatment. So I believe it makes sense to frame the question in a broader context. Even in a narrower sense, considered on its own, exploratory therapy cannot be viewed as a fringe approach, as it has been endorsed by health authorities in several developed and democratic countries, as well as by a major UK psychotherapy association and has been discussed in peer-reviewed scientific literature. The term "fringe" refers to ideas that are considered pseudo scientific and totally rejected by mainstream science (like flat earth theory, for example). It’s not the same as a minority view, as a minority view isn’t necessarily fringe and can, in some cases, even become the prevailing view over time. JonJ937 (talk) 10:39, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::No, "fringe" doesn't mean "pseudoscientific." They have a significant intersection, but they mean different things (e.g., historical denialism is fringe but not pseudoscientific). As I said, if the question is "Is gender exploratory therapy a fringe psychological approach?", then the first step is to define "gender exploratory therapy" clearly. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:15, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::The original question in this thread was whether exploratory therapy is the same as psychotherapy. However, this isn’t a thought through question, as exploratory therapy is a form of psychotherapy and is recommended by health authorities in certain European countries. The question should be more accurately worded to address whether psychotherapy in general as the first form of treatment is a fringe theory/treatment method. Asking whether a specific therapy method qualifies as therapy misses the core issue. I believe it would be good to change the section title and reword the question. With regard to the definitions of exploratory therapy, there are some in the sources that I quoted above. This article from The Economist also provides some useful definitions:

::::::{{quote frame |Until recently the term “conversion therapy” was used to refer to the barbaric and pointless practice of trying to turn a gay person straight. Of late it has been widened to include {{tq|talking therapy that explores why a person’s gender identity is at odds with their biological sex}}. .... Some therapists who work with children with gender dysphoria worry that this could be interpreted to mean therapists should not {{tq|investigate why someone feels distressed about their biological sex}}. This is not the same as trying to convince someone they are not gay. Sexual orientation and gender identity are different. Sexual orientation tends to be innate and fixed; gender identity can be fluid and malleable. It also, requires medical interventions that can have irreversible, harmful effects. It has long been held that people with gender dysphoria should have therapy before drugs. [https://www.economist.com/united-states/2022/06/23/the-biden-administrations-confused-embrace-of-trans-rights]}}

::::::I understand your point about it being fringe, but I think WP:FRINGE/ALT is relevant in this case, as exploratory therapy is recognized as the initial treatment method in several European countries. JonJ937 (talk) 11:26, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::{{tq|The original question in this thread was whether exploratory therapy is the same as psychotherapy.}} The original question is: "Is "gender exploratory therapy" as defined by SEGM the same as what various national medical authorities define as "psychotherapy" (in the context of pediatric gender medicine)?" {{tq|The question should be more accurately worded to address whether psychotherapy in general as the first form of treatment is a fringe theory/treatment method.}} But that's not her question; yours is not about "gender exploratory therapy" at all, whereas "'gender exploratory therapy' as defined by SEGM" is central to YFNS's question. You're certainly free to say that you think hers is a badly phrased question, or that you're more interested in a different question, etc., but don't conflate your preferred question with the one that YFNS actually asked. The Economist says nothing about "gender exploratory therapy," and so cannot answer her question. FactOrOpinion (talk) 12:57, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::From what I can see, The Economist is discussing the same method of therapy as the sources that I cited above. This is a summary of the sources quoted. SAGE article:

::::::::The therapy aims to empower the young person (and their family) with a good understanding of the factors contributing to their distress, coupled with a good understanding of the potential treatment options.

::::::::UKCP:

::::::::therapy explores the presenting issues through open-ended discussion, and is conducted without any preconceptions or pre-decided theoretical framework regarding the person’s gender identity.

::::::::Cass Review

::::::::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

::::::::The Economist:

::::::::therapists ... investigate why someone feels distressed about their biological sex.

::::::::In short, it is a therapy intended to help a child understand the distress they feel about their biological sex, without trying to influence their decisions. JonJ937 (talk) 15:18, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::That economist article is a prime example of why medrs exists, it claims that gender identity can be nebulous and changeable (with a direct comparison to sexual orientation) and that being trans is a diagnosis. I don't trust the economist to be accurate about identifying the type of therapy being used. LunaHasArrived (talk) 17:17, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::You seem to have missed my point. YFNS asked a question about "gender exploratory therapy," specifically: {{tq|Is "gender exploratory therapy" as defined by SEGM the same as what various national medical authorities define as "psychotherapy" (in the context of pediatric gender medicine)?}} She went on to identify some subquestions, such as {{tq|Do we have an independent medical source which provides a definition of "gender exploratory therapy"? In particular, a source besides those which say it is equivalent to conversion therapy?}} Unless you first focus on defining "gender exploratory therapy," it is impossible to determine whether any of the sources you're quoting are the same thing as "gender exploratory therapy." FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:21, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::This doesn't really make sense when you look at the sourcing for Gender exploratory therapy. Eg. WPATH talks about "[https://wpath.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/25.11.22-AUSPATH-Statement-reworked-for-WPATH-Final-ASIAPATH.EPATH_.PATHA_.USPATH.pdf exploratory therapy]" while criticising the Cass Review, which talks about "[https://cass.independent-review.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/CassReview_Final.pdf exploratory approaches]" and cites Spiliadis who talks about the "[https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/SexualOrientation/IESOGI/Other/Rebekah_Murphy_TowardsaGenderExploratoryModelslowingthingsdownopeningthingsupandexploringidentitydevelopment.pdf gender exploratory model]", and Domenico Di Ceglie, who talks about "[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247512973_Engaging_young_people_with_atypical_gender_identity_development_in_therapeutic_work_A_developmental_approach psychotherapeutic exploration]".

::::::::::Meanwhile the UKCP talks about "[https://www.psychotherapy.org.uk/news/ukcp-guidance-regarding-gender-critical-views/ exploratory therapy]".

::::::::::And SEGM talk about "[https://jme.bmj.com/content/51/1/3 exploratory psychotherapy]".

::::::::::There is no singular identifiable practice as "gender exploratory therapy" in the way you're asking for. In academia, the term comes from Florence Ashley's critique of Spiliadis' "gender exploratory model", which is the Cass Review's "exploratory approach" which is WPATH's "exploratory therapy". Hence Cass saying {{tq | Terms such as ‘affirmative’ and ‘exploratory’ approaches have been weaponised to the extent that it is difficult to find any neutral terminology.}} Void if removed (talk) 23:33, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::The question comes from YFNS, and her question is pretty specific: {{tq|Is "gender exploratory therapy" as defined by SEGM the same as what various national medical authorities define as "psychotherapy" (in the context of pediatric gender medicine)?}} (emphasis added). The first step in answering that question is: how does SEGM define "gender exploratory therapy"? It's not a question about terms used by other organizations/people. SEGM says that the term "gender exploratory therapy" was coined by Spiliadis in 2017 (two years before the paper of his that you refer to, and even more years before the Ashley paper you refer to), but I haven't seen where SEGM itself defines what "gender exploratory therapy" comprises. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:11, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::@InformationToKnowledge was the one who asked that question

::::::::::::Though to briefly answer, SEGM/Genspect/Therapy First (formerly Gender Exploratory Therapy Association) define gender exploratory therapy as a middle ground between conversion therapy and affirming a child's transgender identity where they indefinitely/prolongedly explore why the kid says they are trans. They usually cite Spiliadis, who's a SEGM advisor. Independent RS take Spiliadis's definition and define it as a nebulously defined series of practices pushed by those groups, which have no empirical evidence, which rely on the a priori that identifying as trans is usually a mental illness, which aim to keep medically transitioning a final resort, and which copy the script for Reparative therapy (a middle ground between gay affirmation and gay conversion therapy as it was marketed).

::::::::::::Here is SEGM saying {{tq| Affirmation, as a psychological practice, is naturally at odds with exploration; it requires that therapists confirm a minor’s self-diagnosis of transgender and facilitate their access to hormones and surgeries. Exploratory therapy affirms a young gender dysphoric person's feelings as real and valid, but rather than confirming their self-diagnosis, questions and probes, looking for developmental factors that may have contributed to gender-related distress. }}[https://segm.org/ease_of_obtaining_hormones_surgeries_GD_US]

::::::::::::* Crucially here - Being transgender is not a diagnosis, yet SEGM insists it is and that affirmative approaches "confirm" it (as opposed to respect it)

::::::::::::There's also Therapy First/SEGMs guideline on GET where they argue that Gender identity change efforts are not harmful {{tq|It is frequently assumed that the same-sex literature applies equally to gender identity, leading to claims that attempts to change gender identity are harmful (American Psychological Association, Task Force on Gender Identity and Gender Variance, 2021). While this may seem plausible, there is no credible evidence to support such a claim}}[https://www.therapyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/GETA_ClinicalGuide_2022.pdf]

::::::::::::So as SEGM calls for exploratory therapy, it defines it as probing and questioning "self-diagnosis" as trans (which isn't a diagnosis) and argues that trans conversion therapy is not evidenced to be harmful (false). It produced a guideline on GET which no MEDORG in the world has cited or endorsed. Non-judgemental exploration itself is recommended in WPATH's SOC8 {{tq| [Health Care Providers] working with adolescents should promote supportive environments that simultaneously respect an adolescent’s affirmed gender identity and also allows the adolescent to openly explore gender needs}} (note their respect of the youth's identity), but WPATH has also called out "exploratory therapy" as a euphemism for conversion, particularly when viewing {{tq|gender incongruence largely as a mental health disorder or a state of confusion }}.[https://web.archive.org/web/20241216083325/https://wpath.org/media/cms/Documents/Public%20Policies/2022/25.11.22%20AUSPATH%20Statement%20reworked%20for%20WPATH%20Final%20ASIAPATH.EPATH.PATHA.USPATH.pdf?_t=1669428978] Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 03:39, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::I provided a few sources above that lay out the definition of the gender exploratory therapy. This is another WP:MEDORG, the Australian National Association of Practising Psychiatrists, which is also in favor of exploratory therapy (also referred to as psychodynamic psychotherapy):

:::::::::::::{{quote frame |Psychotherapy for gender dysphoria in children and adolescents is a respectful, supportive and exploratory process that does not seek any particular outcome in relation to gender identity or sexual orientation. It seeks to understand the nature and meaning of the young person’s gender distress and the context in which it has arisen. Psychotherapy addresses the multiple factors that contribute to the young person’s difficulties, helping to address issues that resolve distress and support ongoing development and maturation. Conversion therapies, on the other hand, aim to achieve a pre-determined outcome such as gender normativity or heterosexual orientation. Psychotherapy for gender dysphoria must NOT be conflated with conversion therapies. [https://napp.org.au/2022/03/managing-gender-dysphoria-incongruence-in-young-people-a-guide-for-health-practitioners-2/]}}

:::::::::::::This is a statement by the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists (RANZCP):

:::::::::::::{{quote frame |There is a range of recommendations regarding the care of children and adolescents with gender incongruence/gender dysphoria. These include caution on the use of hormonal and surgical treatment, screening for potential coexisting conditions (e.g., ASD and ADHD), arranging appropriate service provision for these conditions, and offering psychosocial support to explore gender identity during the diagnostic assessment. [https://www.ranzcp.org/clinical-guidelines-publications/clinical-guidelines-publications-library/role-of-psychiatrists-working-with-trans-gender-diverse-people]}}

:::::::::::::Regarding YFNS sources, self-diagnosis appears to relate to gender dysphoria, which is a diagnosis, according to our own article on gender dysphoria. [https://www.therapyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/GETA_ClinicalGuide_2022.pdf ] The source that YFNS cites (which is not a SEGM document, but was developed with SEGM's support) actually states that the exploratory therapy is not aimed at changing patient's gender identity, or any particular outcome.

:::::::::::::{{quote frame |Exploratory therapy does not have a fixed outcome, such as identification with natal sex, as its goal. Instead, it is a patient-centered process which aims to explore, understand and address the multiple, intersecting factors generating distress in the young person’s life. One possible outcome is that the individual may come to identify with their birth sex and accept their body as is. Or, they may decide to find non-medical ways to live a better life while still honoring their unique gendered experience. Or, they may decide to go ahead with gender transition and medical/surgical interventions even if they have a greater understanding of the complex sources of their distress. These outcomes are equally valid and equally legitimate.}}

:::::::::::::Clearly this is almost identical to the definitions given by UKCP, NAPP and others. Considering the widespread support from major medical organizations around the world, it is impossible to characterize exploratory therapy as a fringe theory simply because SEGM supports it too. SEGM’s stance has consistently been that the United States should adopt the more cautious approach taken by many European nations, including prioritization of the psychotherapy. JonJ937 (talk) 10:22, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::{{tq|Regarding YFNS sources, self-diagnosis appears to relate to gender dysphoria, which is a diagnosis, according to our own article on gender dysphoria.}} - Our article doesn't say that...

::::::::::::::Neither of those sources mention "gender exploratory therapy" or "exploratory therapy". The NAPP calls for {{tq|respecting young people’s views about their gender identity}} and {{tq|Exploratory psychotherapy should be offered to all gender-questioning young people to identify the many potential sources of distress in their lives in addition to their gender concerns}} (not, exploratory therapy focused on the gender concerns)

::::::::::::::The NAPP is also not the leading MEDORG in Australia in the field, that's the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists. The RANZCP says {{tq|offering psychosocial support to explore gender identity during the diagnostic assessment}} (not requiring it - this is in line with WPATH) and says {{tq|The RANZCP acknowledges the evidence (both scientific and historical) that the spectrum of human gender diversity, has long existed in many parts of the world, civilisations, and cultures. Being Trans or Gender Diverse does not represent a mental health condition. }}[https://www.ranzcp.org/clinical-guidelines-publications/clinical-guidelines-publications-library/role-of-psychiatrists-working-with-trans-gender-diverse-people] GET is based on the premise it sometimes is. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:17, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::From the article about gender dysphoria: "Diagnosis can be given at any age, although gender dysphoria in children and adolescents may manifest differently than in adults." The reference is to APA. Different sources use different names for the gender exploratory psychotherapy, though they all refer to the same practice. There is no generally accepted standard or definition. RANZCP uses terms "Exploratory psychotherapy" and "psychodynamic psychotherapy", referring to the same treatment method. As mentioned above, RANZCP mentions "offering psychosocial support to explore gender identity during the diagnostic assessment". This means that RANZCP is not against the gender exploratory therapy (referred to as "psychosocial support to explore gender identity"), they see it as an appropriate treatment method. They follow up by referring to exploratory therapy as psychodynamic psychotherapy:

:::::::::::::::{{quote frame |The RANZCP acknowledges that people who are questioning their gender identity may seek a psychiatrist to navigate and better understand their gender identity. As highlighted in Position Statement 54: Psychotherapy conducted by psychiatrists, psychological intervention such as psychodynamic psychotherapy enables a collaborative and holistic approach to mental health care. ... The goal of psychotherapy, explicit or implicit, is to improve self-awareness and not to promote a particular gender identity outcome. }}

:::::::::::::::The TF guideline that you quoted says that exploratory therapy is open to any outcome and is not intended to push for a particular gender identity. With leading MEDORGs around the world endorsing the exploratory therapy, it is obvious that it is not a fringe idea, otherwise it would mean that they all endorse fringe theories. JonJ937 (talk) 11:10, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::What reason do you believe that despite all using different names and having no standard or definition, that somehow all these different places are referring to the same practice. This would seem extraordinary even if they were trying to (just based on having no standard or accepted guideline to follow). LunaHasArrived (talk) 11:36, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::YFNS, thanks for the correction re: who asked the question, my mistake. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:14, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::We should refrain from melding distinct organizations together. Its not accurate and it convolutes the discussion. SEGM and Therapy First are distinct organizations with all standard organizational separations (mission, funding, tax filing etc.). SEGM and AAP have overlapping members, but they are also distinct organizations. Evathedutch (talk) 16:46, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::RS frequently explicitly note that SEGM and Therapy First share most of their board and work together. SEGM helped TF, formerly the "Gender Exploratory Therapy Association" create a guideline on "Gender Exploratory Therapy". Are you arguing that SEGM and Therapy First don't share the same definition of GET? Because independent RS, and the orgs themselves, would disagree. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:19, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::That's my point - {{tq | "gender exploratory therapy" as defined by SEGM}} makes no sense without a source where they do that. The only page I found that mentions it is Spiliadis' bio on their site. He coined that term while working at the Tavistock GIDS, and wrote it up in 2019.

::::::::::::So when Spiliadis uses the term, you can read his paper to see what he means - the gender exploratory model or gender exploratory approach is an undirected therapeutic approach with no fixed outcome in mind. The case study in question revolves around a male adolescent presenting with a binary cross-sex identity, who - through non-judgemental and undirected and pretty standard psychotherapeutic exploration - comes to realise this stems from internalised homophobia over their suppressed same-sex attraction, before adopting a more fluid gender identity.

::::::::::::Spiliadis presents this as distinct from earlier coercive attempts to prevent a cross-sex identity (ie by denying "wrong" clothing or makeup in an effort to force "conformity"), and later efforts in the 2010s based on affirming and endorsing the child's gender identity.

::::::::::::If any definition exists of what this process is, it is that, which is also how it was summarised in the Cass Review 5 years later.

::::::::::::And it is this process, which both Florence Ashley (referencing Spiliadis) and WPATH (referencing Cass) have called "conversion".

::::::::::::This is why I created this page last year - because the sources used by YFNS on the Gender exploratory therapy section actually use a variety of terms and it is clear they are all addressing the same thing.

::::::::::::When it comes to an actual SEGM definition, other instances where SEGM talk about this use terms like "exploratory psychotherapy", eg [https://segm.org/first_mental_health_guideline_to_deviate_from_gender_affirmation here]:

::::::::::::{{quote frame | Until high quality evidence is available to ascertain who will benefit and who might be harmed by "affirming" endocrine and surgical interventions, exploratory psychotherapy should be the first-line treatment for young people suffering from gender-related distress.}}

::::::::::::This is not a FRINGE position. Its a standard position. Until the affirmative approach was coined in the 2010s, I'd say this was a near-universal approach.

::::::::::::The US has gone all-in on affirmation. The UK has taken a step back and said the exploratory model is more appropriate given the unknowns. Meanwhile advocates of the affirmative model are horrified and liken anything else to conversion therapy, and now we're trying to make sense of this shibboleth "gender exploratory therapy" as if it were a distinct practice from pretty ordinary undirected psychotherapy. Void if removed (talk) 09:54, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::I also don't think that SEGM provided any strict definition of what gender exploratory therapy is. A universal definition of gender exploratory therapy is unlikely to exist. JonJ937 (talk) 10:44, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::The sources that do actually define it are the ones critical of it. They usually define it in terms that proponents would not accept. Critics then say "well, they would say that wouldn't they".

::::::::::::::[https://www.politicshome.com/thehouse/article/baroness-hilary-cass-gender-review-interview-brexit-terf-trans-care One summation of this situation comes from Cass]:

::::::::::::::{{quote frame | “The problem is, nobody’s been really clear about defining what they mean by conversion therapy,” Cass replies. “There are individuals who are saying that [psychological] therapists who just take that careful, exploratory approach with a young person are conversion therapists, and that’s why it becomes so difficult, because then those therapists working in that space who are getting attacked become fearful,”}}

::::::::::::::IMO this is a controversy between those who favour an affirmative approach vs an exploratory one that has descended into hyperbole. Void if removed (talk) 11:02, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

P.S. NHS states in the "Treatment for children and young people" section that: "Most treatments offered at this stage are psychological rather than medical. This is because in many cases gender variant behaviour or feelings disappear as children reach puberty."JonJ937 (talk) 11:34, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Since we are discussing exploratory psychotherapies, it is relevant to examine how this issue is presented in the Wikipedia article on SEGM. The section on conversion therapy in that article gives the impression that SEGM supports conversion therapy, yet this characterization is primarily based on three highly partisan sources: the advocacy groups Trans Safety Network and SPLC, as well as a self-published piece by AJ Eckert, a board member of USPATH.

In contrast, SEGM’s actual position, as outlined in their letter to the Canadian Senate, expresses concern that overly broad legal definitions of conversion therapy could inadvertently ban all forms of supportive and exploratory psychotherapy for gender-dysphoric youth. SEGM states:

"There is a very real risk that all forms of supportive and explorative psychotherapies for young patients who present with gender dysphoria will be classified as 'conversion'."

[https://sencanada.ca/content/sen/committee/432/LCJC/Briefs/2021-05-07_LCJC_C-6_Brief_SEGM_e.pdf]

Rather than presenting SEGM’s stance in its own words, the Wikipedia article conveys it exclusively through the framing of these three critical sources. This raises concerns about neutrality and due weight, as SEGM’s perspective is filtered through organizations that have taken an explicitly adversarial stance against it. There was some discussion about SEGM's objections to the Canadian law among other users on this page. But my concern here is that the SEGM article does not provide accurate representation of this debate. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 10:58, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

• Comment on claims that SEGM aligns with "European" policies, in particular the UK. This has been made multiple times by people who cite it as evidence that SEGM is not fringe. However, the latest formal national expert assessment statement on transgender health, this time from Poland (published 26 February 2025 - AFTER this RFC began, and available [https://journals.viamedica.pl/endokrynologia_polska/article/view/104289 here]), goes through the policies of various European countries and goes out of its way to state {{quote|"Currently, no European guidelines recommend a complete abandonment of providing hormonal interventions to adolescents. "}} and also {{quote|"It should therefore be emphasised that most European countries still provide gender-affirming care for minors"}} While SEGM may claim that it represents "European" health opinion, this does seem to be a very hyperbolic claim at best. The same report is also quite scathing about Cass as a statement of evidence. It says {{quote|"One of the overt criteria that the NHS followed in choosing Hilary Cass was her complete lack of experience in working with people with gender incongruence and dysphoria, which was to ensure her independence and impartiality. However, in practice it resulted in an unprecedented situation in healthcare when a non-expert in the field was invited to develop expert recommendations. The common thread of many objections to the Cass report is the multifaceted downplaying of the importance of the voices of adolescents and their families, clinical practice, the scientific knowledge base, and national and global recommendations, while misleading the public that a complete lack of clinical experience in a given field is a guarantee of reliability. As a multidisciplinary team of experts and patients, we consider such a trend to be harmful and completely contrary to the interests of adolescents in need of help."}} This seems to me to be an emphatic rejection of Cass as representing mainstream expertise. Given that SEGM is actually more extreme than Cass in its rejection of affirmative interventions in transgender health, it seems clearer than ever that SEGM is very much at odds with mainstream medical opinion, even if it aligns with the stance of certain political movements in power in certain countries. Some of the same movements are also climate change denialist, and that doesn't change expert opinion on that matter either. OsFish (talk) 04:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
• :That is not what the sources state. The Undark magazine wrote that "On key issues, the organization’s views were increasingly aligned with those of several major European medical institutions, which were beginning to restrict access to puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones", "This emphasis on psychological support aligns with current health policy in several other countries, including Sweden, Finland, and the U.K." and "SEGM, citing guidelines in Finland and elsewhere in Europe, has described this (psychotherapy) as the preferred treatment for younger people". [https://undark.org/2024/05/20/pediatric-transgender-care-contentious-segm/] SEGM's position aligns not with political movements, but with the health authorities of several European countries, particularly in Scandinavia. In addition, "SEGM believes that psychosocial support and psychotherapy should be first-line treatment for young people struggling with gender dysphoria" [https://segm.org/ease_of_obtaining_hormones_surgeries_GD_US], i.e. SEGM supports psychotherapy in all its forms, including exploratory therapy as one of its types. SEGM is not entirely opposed to affirmative interventions, it believes such interventions should be administered only within clinical trial settings, as is the practice in several European countries. [https://segm.org/NICE_gender_medicine_systematic_review_finds_poor_quality_evidence] JonJ937 (talk) 09:53, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::I don't see how a 2024 source can tell us about a 2025 statement. Nil Einne (talk) 08:41, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::Sorry, what 2025 source are you referring to? If you mean the Polish paper, it is not about SEGM. JonJ937 (talk) 10:00, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::You're replying to OsFish where OsFish was talking about the Polish source and how it relates to the issues discussed in their opinion. If you wanted to talk about something else not sure why you replied to OsFish. Nil Einne (talk) 03:41, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::A magazine like Undark carries a whole lot less weight on this matter than WP:MEDRS such as consensus statements from teams of national subject-area experts in various countries. So in terms of what "the sources" state, we give the expert statements much greater weight. The question here is whether or not SEGM is fringe when it comes to statements about evidence and best practice in transgender health. The claim in defence of SEGM is that SEGM cannot be fringe because it aligns with the policies of "several" European countries. The problem is that:
• ::a) This characterisation of those European policies is, according to MEDRS, flawed.
• ::b) Even on the flawed characterisation, SEGM would be even more extreme than those European policies.
• ::c) Being aligned with the policies of a country does not mean SEGM cannot be fringe. As an analogy: just because RFK Jr is now running the public health system in the US and is introducing various [https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/fact-checking-rfk-jr-s-claim-that-environmental-toxins-cause-autism crank ideas about autism], that doesn't make crank organisations about autism any less fringe in terms of medical expertise just because they "increasingly align with major American medical institutions"
• ::d) MEDRS is directly critical of the key document pushing what is at best a handful of countries only somewhat in the direction of SEGM's stance as being against international expert consensus.
• ::Of course, SEGM want to present their stance as more respectable and mainstream, but well they would, wouldn't they?. OsFish (talk) 05:45, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::SEGM supports the idea that the United States should follow countries like the United Kingdom, Sweden, and Finland by making psychotherapy the first line treatment for gender dysphoria. In what way can this position be considered fringe? What is exactly extreme in the statement that "SEGM believes that psychosocial support and psychotherapy should be first-line treatment for young people struggling with gender dysphoria"? This is the official health policy in a number of European countries and SEGM is simply advocating for a similar approach. Even if some MEDRS criticize certain aspects of those European policies, that does not make those policies fringe. We cannot declare the health policies of multiple advanced and democratic countries fringe. Fringe positions are those with little or no scientific support and a position endorsed by MEDORGs around the world cannot be considered fringe. You need to be more specific about what you believe is an extreme position. There is no expert consensus on gender affirming care. The WHO says that evidence supporting it is limited. JonJ937 (talk) 09:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::"Even if some MEDRS criticize certain aspects of those European policies, that does not make those policies fringe". Yes, yes it does, if MEDRS after MEDRS after MEDRS says so, and they have said so. If a government adopts a policy based on fringe science, such as is happening with RFK jr in the US, that does not make it fringe. It is fringe, for example, to [https://www.irishstar.com/news/us-news/fetus-debris-vaccines-claim-rfk-35149169 claim that the MMR vaccine contains bits of "fetus debris"], no matter how much the current US Secretary of Health and Human Services wishes to base American policy on that claim. Or would you say it isn't fringe to claim such a thing, based on the arguments you have made here? OsFish (talk) 09:59, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::I don't think you understand how WP:FRINGE works. "Fringe" concerns the ideas that don’t have support from the mainstream scientific or medical community. When health authorities in many developed countries and other MEDORGS around the world support something, it cannot be considered fringe. Fringe is not the same as minority opinion, even though opposition to gender affirming care is hardly a minority opinion now, considering that even the WHO, the organization which usually reflects global medical consensus, has stated that the evidence for gender affirming care is limited. I don't see the relevance of RFK Jr. to this discussion, he certainly doesn't represent the European countries that have restricted puberty blockers or recommended psychotherapy as the first-line treatment, based on research conducted in each country. JonJ937 (talk) 10:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::I understand it perfectly well. Which is why I have been citing MEDRS, and pointing out that political choices unsupported by MEDRS are fringe. You keep saying "many" countries when it simply isn't, as the Polish expert consensus statement points out. Please stick to MEDRS descriptions of the state of affairs. WP:FRINGE makes it clear that political salience of a scientific idea makes it notable for coverage, but doesn't protect it from being fringe.OsFish (talk) 12:22, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::{{tq|I don't think you understand how WP:FRINGE works.}} Having read over this discussion, I am of the opinion that you're the one who seems to be mistaking our policies, and the rather clear consensus here seems to reinforce that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:11, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::I looked up WP:MEDORG, and it recommends the British National Health Service (NHS) as a valuable source for encyclopedic medical content. The NHS recommends psychotherapy as the first step in treating gender dysphoria. If we start dismissing the NHS, we’re going against Wikipedia’s own guidelines. If the NHS is a trusted source, then its views aren’t fringe, because Wikipedia rules would not advise us to use sources pushing fringe theories.Parker.Josh (talk) 13:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::Read the rest of the policy: {{tq|Guidelines by major medical and scientific organizations sometimes clash with one another (for example, the World Health Organization and American Heart Association on salt intake), which should be resolved in accordance with WP:WEIGHT. Guidelines do not always correspond to best evidence, but instead of omitting them, reference the scientific literature and explain how it may differ from the guidelines.}} Loki (talk) 17:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::I would add that this isn’t the first time in the history of this encyclopaedia for such an issue to be encountered. The NHS until recently also supported the provision of homeopathy (and I believe the public health system in Germany still does). Even then, we wouldn’t have treated homeopathy as anything other than pseudoscience, while still treating the NHS as a reliable encyclopedic-style source. MEDRS is clearly, often expressly against the current position of the NHS on gender dysphoria in young people, which has these particular guidelines as a result of top level political direction. It doesn’t make the NHS fringe in general because the NHS does not exist solely or primarily to promote psychotherapy-only approaches for gender dysphoria for people under 16.
• :::::::::But I would also stress yet again that the NHS position on transgender medicine is not the same as SEGM’s: any claim to validate SEGM because of NHS policy is based on a falsehood even before we get to evaluating the NHS stance. SEGM has a history of opposing ALL medical interventions to support transition (such as its work in trying to get gender affirming care defunded in multiple US states), and of supporting conversion therapy and junk theories like ROGD. Whereas the NHS supports medical transition in people over the age of 16. This is why the Polish expert consensus statement correctly points out "Currently, no European guidelines recommend a complete abandonment of providing hormonal interventions to adolescents."
• :::::::::FRINGE organisations like to claim legitimacy by insinuating mainstream experts actually support their stance. We should be aware of this tactic when assessing if an organisation is FRINGE or not. Are such claims true? When SEGM claims “some European countries have reversed the practice of youth transitions (e.g., Finland, Sweden, UK)”, it’s a false claim (for all three countries). Hormone therapy in all three countries is available at 16. Why would a regular, non-FRINGE organisation get something so central to its expertise wrong? The simplest explanation, in line with multiple sources identifying SEGM as such, is that it’s FRINGE. OsFish (talk) 01:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::Yes, I suppose that is worth noting. SEGM used to push for 25, right? Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::Yes, "youth" for them means under 25 as in the [https://archive.md/DFE5X last sentence here]. Which is also the meaning given in eg Finland. The general SEGM strategy is to portray concerns over the evidence around blockers in particular as indicating expert concerns over the idea of transition in general. But the availability of hormones for youth even in countries that have restricted or effectively stopped access to blockers demonstrates that SEGM's insinuations are spin in defence of its fringe position.OsFish (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::To support your point, the WHO still [https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240042711 has a page up that loosely endorses] Ayurveda. WP:MEDORGs are strong WP:MEDRS sources but no source is infallible. Loki (talk) 18:38, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::This is not about what is right or wrong, but whether a position is fringe. Can we claim that the NHS’s position fringe, when our rules say the opposite? The WHO aligns with the NHS in stating that the evidence for gender affirming care is limited. SEGM actually cites UK guidelines when advocating that psychotherapy should be the first line treatment. [https://segm.org/ease_of_obtaining_hormones_surgeries_GD_US] One can debate whether this approach is correct, but even being in the minority is not the same as being fringe. It is WP:FRINGE/ALT, because an idea is fringe only if it lacks support in mainstream science. That is not the case here, as opinions on the medical transition of minors are divided, and many national health authorities and medical organizations oppose it. SEGM has also updated its position and no longer supports a strict age limit for gender affirming care: "In previous years, SEGM argued that psychotherapy was the preferred treatment for patients 25 and under, though it no longer specifies any age at which medical interventions would be appropriate, citing ongoing research into various age groups." [https://undark.org/2024/05/20/pediatric-transgender-care-contentious-segm/] However, our article incorrectly states that SEGM currently supports an age limit of 25. In addition, SEGM does not claim that the UK, Finland and Sweden have completely banned puberty blockers and does not call for a complete ban. SEGM actually supports restricting the use of these medications to clinical trials, similar to the approach taken by those countries. [https://segm.org/NICE_gender_medicine_systematic_review_finds_poor_quality_evidence] In summary, if SEGM advocates that psychotherapy should be the first line treatment, in line with practices in several European countries, then its position cannot be fringe, because it would mean that health authorities of those countries support fringe theories. No source ever suggested that. JonJ937 (talk) 10:02, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::::You ask about whether SEGM can be considered if it agrees with the NHS and the NHS is a MEDORG. This question was directly answered above. I'll repeat the answers: SEGM is not in agreement with the NHS, and makes false statements about UK, Finnish and Swedish policy on youth transition (it is still supported, against their claim that support for youth transition has been reversed), so hiding behind the NHS is not a valid strategy. Also, as was made clear with quotes from policy, there is NO rule that says a MEDORG's support prevents something being considered fringe. So hiding behind the NHS WOULD NOT be a valid strategy if that position were contradicted by MEDRS. By the by, you cited a 2021 statement by SEGM on blockers. [https://segm.org/England-UK-Puberty-Blockers-Cross-Sex-Hormones-Policy-March-2024 In 2024, they claimed] "NHS England’s recognition that puberty blockers, hormones, and surgeries have profound irreversible consequences, unknown long-term effects". NHS England at that point had made no such statement about the profound irreversible consequences of blockers. Again, SEGM appears to be misrepresenting MEDORG stances in order to present itself as mainstream. OsFish (talk) 08:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::::We are not discussing puberty blockers, that issue has already been settled. We’ve already had an RFC on puberty blockers and there was a clear consensus that opposition to them in any form isn’t a fringe position. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_104#Puberty_blockers_in_children] There’s no need to reopen that debate. If opposition to puberty blockers isn’t fringe, then SEGM’s opposition to them isn’t fringe either. This discussion is about something else, psychotherapy as the first-line treatment. That position clearly isn’t fringe either, given that it’s supported by multiple international MEDORGs. Since you continue to insist that this position is fringe, this discussion may serve as an RFCBEFORE. I've started a separate RFC concerning psychotherapy. JonJ937 (talk) 10:33, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::::::I was not discussing the merits of puberty blockers. I was demonstrating how SEGM clearly misrepresents health policies of countries. A question: do you think it matters that SEGM repeatedly misrepresents the health policies of countries? OsFish (talk) 13:36, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

There is currently an Afd regarding the page Sexuality in Lord of the Rings in which the delete !vote argument is derived by calling the material WP:FRINGE. It would be wise for people with expertise in the WP:FRINGE policy to weigh in on whether the source being discussed constitutes a fringe source. Simonm223 (talk) 15:04, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:It has been closed. If anyone has any views against that then go to WP:DRV. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:45, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::It's been closed for a while; I sincerely hope nobody does take it to DRV.Simonm223 (talk) 20:28, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

• {{al|Near-death studies}}

I'm wonderiing why this article exists, and suspect its existence may over-weight the WP:FRINGE in a POV way. Cannot this content be treated in a pithy way in the main article Near-death experience (as Wikipedia manages with such topics as, say, pancreatic cancer or cardiac arrest)? Or is there something I'm missing which makes this subject so weighty it needs a loving exposition of research material in a standalone article? Bon courage (talk) 05:01, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:I think it exists because the acolytes were/are very well-funded and managed to get an indexed journal Journal of Near-Death Studies up and running. Maybe a merge to the journal? I don't know. jps (talk) 13:54, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

This article is on my watchlist purely because I created the early draft of it, though, it's evolved quite a bit since then.
In any case, it recently has become the subject of a lot of off-WP attention from alien abductee believers.
The first round of of this attention was operationalized by repeated attempts to blank the article, which resulted in semi-protection and a few blocks. When that didn't work, it was then nominated for deletion, which resulted in a Speedy Keep. After blanking and deletion failed, it is now the focus of attempts to introduce balance.
As I have intermittent access to the internet for the next few weeks, I will be unable to pay any attention to it, so I'm just leaving this note here for general awareness in case it's something someone else wants to watchlist. Chetsford (talk) 00:20, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:For my part, I had nothing with blanking or proposed deletions. It's a great topic. The biggest thing we need to "balance" isn't ET vs psychogenic, it's the coverage between Psychosocial UFO hypothesis and Psychological perspectives on UFO belief. Jung probably belongs in later, for example. More eyes always helpful. Feoffer (talk) 02:07, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:Like I wrote somewhere else, the article should be renamed to Psychological perspectives on UFO sightings (or experiences). One does not need to see a UFO to believe in them. Believing in aliens and thinking you saw aliens are two very different things. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 03:43, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:I brought this up before but psychology is under the MEDRS umbrella afaik (could be wrong), in which case aren't most of the sources problematic? PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:41, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::Feoffer - sorry I was not impugning you. I was referring to some off-site discussion currently ongoing. PARAKANYAA - I was under the impression psychiatry was covered by MEDRS, not psychology? I, too, could be wrong. Chetsford (talk) 06:42, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::No worries. And I would imagine true clinical psychology also falls under MEDRS, but general psychological research, probably not? Feoffer (talk) 06:50, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Makes sense to me. Either way, my understanding of MEDRS' proscription on research results would not preclude the use of case studies, as case studies are analytical versus experimental, and MEDRS seeks to limit the use of unreplicated experiments that could be inferred as advisory. But case studies observe naturally occurring variables as opposed to manipulated variables designed to produce cause-and-effect conclusions. Though, perhaps I am misinterpreting. Chetsford (talk) 07:10, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

[https://www.jpost.com/archaeology/archaeology-around-the-world/article-851490?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR5jR01kDWeOi7PSadv7R2-W3NJJvXGVb9_MdzGE3B2W7Fsiec88IxQ3bS6VRw_aem_lGianEfUme27AfAlHhYxAA] See Durupınar site. Maybe should be added as an EL there? See also the websites of the organisation. [https://noahsarkscans.com/] The scientist involved seems reputable, which I didn't expect. [https://scholar.google.com.au/citations?user=cjPssJIAAAAJ&hl=en]. Doug Weller talk 09:02, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:First, what the hell Jerusalem Post?: {{tq|The article was written with the assistance of a news analysis system.}} Connected to Ryan Mauro of the Capital Research Center. I don't think an EL link to the news article or the organization is appropriate right now. I feel badly about not having worked on the Durupınar and Ron Wyatt articles yet. fiveby(zero) 12:45, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::That's fine. I was in email communication with Fasold shortly before he died. Doug Weller talk 13:08, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Talk:The_Telepathy_Tapes#Fringe_commentary_removal Psychology Today is hosting the blog of a fellow who talks about the reality of psychic phenomena. Is his credulity about the telepathy tapes in that blog worthy of inclusion in our article? jps (talk) 16:10, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:Funnily enough I was looking at this earlier. You must have read my mind! This is fringe AF and there is a dearth of quality sourcing. I thinking this whole think might usefully be reduced to section in facilitated communication so as not to amp the nonsense unduly. Bon courage (talk) 16:45, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::The podcast was briefly number one, knocking out Joe Rogan's position. So that, to me, seems to be an indication that it is probably notable enough for a standalone article. Actually, there is some pretty solid sourcing in critique that I was able to find, but my worry is that this particular source may warrant inclusion per WP:PARITY cutting the other way. What I would like to say is that the blogpost's author is a fellow traveller, so to speak, but it is a bit difficult to do this without additional context. One could say the same thing about the other sources, I suppose. But it still seems like this blogpost isn't as well-considered as the others. jps (talk) 19:02, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::I may have figured out a way to incorporate the source. Pretty disappointed that [https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/parapsychology Psychology Today in its new formulation] is as credulous as it is towards parapsychology. Seems like it is hosting quite a few credulous blogs on the subject and other pseudoscientific nonsense like synchronicity [https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/connecting-with-coincidence/202402/riding-waves-of-rhythm-frequency-and-levels-of-awareness], quantum flapdoodle [https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/heal-the-mind-heal-the-body/202001/can-quantum-physics-hold-the-key-happiness], and qigong [https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/invisible-wounds/201309/qigong-the-va]. jps (talk) 21:07, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

On their talk page. User talk:Steevez Special:Contributions/Steevez Doug Weller talk 18:11, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

See WP:RSN#Bruce Ecker. Discussion takes place there. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I started a discussion at WP:NPOVN about David and Stephen Flynn. They are involved in promoting fringe medical theories and the article has had issues with editors trying to reframe that as legitimate medical advice for months. Aspening (talk) 04:44, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:The most important thing is to ensure that nobody ever, ever forgets that they said incorrect things. People who say wrong things must be punished, and their wrong things said must dominate their biographies for all time, so that hopefully no one will ever say a wrong thing again. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:10, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

{{cot|title=Had a recent RfC on this, which the nom participated in, and there’s no WP:RFCBEFORE. Potentially a WP:SNOW close as well. Kowal2701 (talk) 10:48, 15 May 2025 (UTC)}}

We had a thorough discussion on psychotherapy above, which serves as the RFCBEFORE. I would now like to ask the community to weigh in on the following question:

Is psychotherapy as the first-line treatment for gender dysphoria in minors a fringe theory?--JonJ937 (talk) 09:55, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:No, not fringe. Psychotherapy as first line treatment is recommended by national health authorities in the [https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria/treatment/ UK], [https://palveluvalikoima.fi/documents/1237350/22895008/Summary_minors_en+(1).pdf/fa2054c5-8c35-8492-59d6-b3de1c00de49/Summary_minors_en+(1).pdf Finland], [https://www.socialstyrelsen.se/globalassets/sharepoint-dokument/artikelkatalog/kunskapsstod/2023-1-8330.pdf Sweden], [https://bioetica.governo.it/media/ymhlpqt4/abstract-triptorelina.pdf Italy] and other countries. This demonstrates that the idea has strong mainstream support. JonJ937 (talk) 09:58, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::As noted in my comment below, and as people pointed out to you in the discussion above, none of those countries state that psychotherapy should be the first-line treatment for gender dysphoria, or even claim that GD can be treated with psychotherapy.

::As consensus has supported dozens of times, gender exploratory therapy is a form of conversion therapy endorsed by no health agency in the world (except for the Trump administration HHS gender dysphoria report, politically motivated and slammed by every MEDORG in the US) as it takes the a priori that trans identities are often caused by mental illness, and we just had an [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&oldid=1289717536#RfC_about_the_pathologization_of_trans_identities RFC on the pathologization of trans identities] finding clear consensus that {{tq|the claim that transgender identities are themselves a mental illness, or are frequently caused by mental illness, is a fringe view for the purposes of Wikipedia, because in the view of the RfC participants this position is clearly contradicted by the current consensus in mainstream medicine, science and human rights discourse.}} Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:53, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:Poorly defined question as the answer is clearly different for 5 year olds and 17 year olds. It would have been far far better to just start this as a new discussion rather than just jumping straight to a rfc. LunaHasArrived (talk) 10:50, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::To make the point more clearly, how are we defining both first-line and minors for this question, how do we consider that medical guidelines will offer different treatment for people of different ages. All of these would have turned up in a proper RFC before discussion.

::Having read above it seems that this RFC was started to try and make a point about SEGM's views, if this is the case the above question wouldn't even be helpful. SEGM'S views include that idea that under 25s (if not everyone) should be offered only psychotherapy as the first (and possibly only) treatment for gender dysphoria.

::In short this RFC should probably be closed sooner rather than later as these RFCs have a habit of ballooning very very quickly and it'd be much better to have a proper RFC before discussion first. LunaHasArrived (talk) 11:17, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:Yes / Poor question bordering on tendentious: No proper RFCBEFORE and you're repeating falsehoods noted in the earlier discussion. As was pointed out in that discussion,

:* 1) When you say "psychotherapy" - what are the goals/aims/methods of treatment? Gender affirming care offers supportive psychotherapy, particularly for pre-pubescent minors. You said psychotherapy as {{tq| treatment for gender dysphoria}} - the latest clinical practice guideline created by 2 dozen medical associations note {{tq|psychotherapy is recommended for co-incident disorders, for which there is already an indication due to the co-incident disorder itself. However, it is also recommended or the ‘management of [GD] associated distress.’ None of the studies included in the review in question were able to show a reduction in gender dysphoria through psychotherapy.}}[https://register.awmf.org/de/leitlinien/detail/028-014]

:* 2) None of those sources say psychotherapy is a treatment for gender dysphoria...

:** The NHS says (just like WPATH does) that {{tq|Most treatments offered [pre-puberty] are psychological rather than medical}} specifying {{tq|Some young people with lasting signs of gender dysphoria who meet strict criteria may be referred to a hormone specialist (consultant endocrinologist). This is in addition to psychological support.}} - this does not say the psychotherapy is to treat the GD

:** Finland says {{tq|Consultation with a child or youth psychiatrist and the necessary psychiatric treatment and psychotherapy should be arranged locally according to the level of treatment needed. If a child or young person experiencing gender-related anxiety has other simultaneous psychiatric symptoms requiring specialised medical care, treatment according to the nature and severity of the disorder must be arranged within the services of their own region,}}[https://palveluvalikoima.fi/documents/1237350/22895008/Summary_minors_en+(1).pdf/fa2054c5-8c35-8492-59d6-b3de1c00de49/Summary_minors_en+(1).pdf] - so Finland says psychotherapy if needed, for things other than GD. That is not "first line psychotherapy for GD"

:** Sweden recommends they {{tq|Offer psychosocial support for unconditional exploration of gender identity during the diagnostic assessment}}[https://www.socialstyrelsen.se/globalassets/sharepoint-dokument/artikelkatalog/kunskapsstod/2023-1-8330.pdf] - once again, that's in line with WPATH. It says "psychosocial support", not "psychotherapy", and not to treat GD.

:** A governmental body in Italy (NCB) released an opinion (With no sources, fact checking apparent, etc) which {{tq|recommends that clinical assessments be multidisciplinary and that triptorelin be prescribed exclusively following the proven ineffectiveness of a psychological and possibly psychiatric psychotherapeutic path}}, giving no clarification on what these paths are geared towards.[https://bioetica.governo.it/media/ymhlpqt4/abstract-triptorelina.pdf] Meanwhile, we can note the position statement of the Italian Academy of Pediatrics, the Italian Society of Pediatrics, the Italian Society for Pediatric Endocrinology and Diabetes, the Italian Society of Adolescent Medicine and the Italian Society of Child and Adolescent Neuropsychiatry released the same year: {{tq| Currently, there is a lack of evidence-based guidelines for psychological support for children and adolescents with GD. Psychological interventions aimed at altering gender identity have been found to be ineffective and are widely considered unethical [51]. Although there is a shortage of rigorous studies comparing psychotherapy, cognitive behavioral therapy-based approaches, and psychosocial therapy for anxiety and depression, which are the two most prevalent comorbid diagnoses, they could still be provided as treatment options.}} - so the multiple actual MEDORGs in italy make clear psychosocial therapy can be for anxiety or depression, but conversion therapy is innefective. It further notes the NCB's 2018 statement on the matter: {{tq| The NCB, while assessing the risks and benefits associated with off-label use, emphasized the paramount importance of addressing the significant distress experienced by adolescents with GD. This distress often manifests as elevated risks of suicide, self-harm, and heightened levels of depression and anxiety. Consequently, when psychological, psychotherapeutic, and neuropsychiatric interventions prove inadequate, the NCB deemed the use of GnRHa as justified to aid adolescents in navigating this intricate and challenging situation.}} - once again making clear that when they refer to psycho-interventions, these are about distress minors experience, not the GD itself.[https://ijponline.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13052-024-01644-7]

:TLDR, none of these sources (or any RS) say psychotherapy is/should be the first line of treatment for gender dysphoria. All gender-affirming care encourages varying degrees of psycho-therapeutic intake assessments, psychosocial/therapeutic non-judgemental support, and psychotherapy/psychiatry for other disorders. No government agency or MEDORG has endorsed psychotherapy for gender dysphoria. The closest example which has is the Trump administration HHS gender dysphoria report, which was politically motivated and full of falsehoods and bigoted nonsense and slammed by dozens of human rights groups and medical associations. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:45, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:: Your interpretation of sources does not match what the RS write, for example about Finland: "In 2020, Finland’s health agency restricted the care by recommending psychotherapy as the primary treatment for adolescents with gender dysphoria". [https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/09/health/europe-transgender-youth-hormone-treatments.html]--JonJ937 (talk) 09:01, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::The NYT is not WP:MEDRS. How the NYT interprets a guideline is not particularly useful for us, because journalists aren't medical experts. Loki (talk) 00:17, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:::: We don't need MEDRS to state basic facts such as which countries allow or prohibit certain treatment methods. Reporting such facts does not require medical expertise. Medscape, a medical news source, reports the same information as The New York Times:

:::: {{quote frame |Scandinavian countries, most notably Finland, once eager advocates of the gender-affirmative approach, have pulled back and issued new treatment guidelines in 2020 stating that psychotherapy, rather than gender reassignment, should be the first line of treatment for gender-dysphoric youth. [https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/960390 Medscape: Psychiatrists Shift Stance on Gender Dysphoria, Recommend Therapy]}}

:::: Medscape also reports that the Australian National Association of Practising Psychiatrists (NAPP) recommends a "psychotherapy-first" approach, while Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists (RANZCP) stresses the need for a mental health evaluation before considering hormonal treatment and legitimacy of different approaches. Indeed, NAPP's official statement reads:

:::: {{quote frame |Individualised psycho-social interventions (e.g. psychoeducation, individual psychotherapy, school-home liaison, and family therapy) should be first-line treatments for young people with gender dysphoria/incongruence. Exploratory psychotherapy should be offered to all gender-questioning young people to identify the many potential sources of distress in their lives in addition to their gender concerns. [https://napp.org.au/napp-statement-on-gender-dysphoria-in-young-people/] ]}}

::::This is yet another MEDORG supporting a psychotherapy-first approach. Note that fringe is not the same as a minority or alternative view, because an idea is considered fringe only if it lacks support in mainstream science. Given that this treatment approach is supported by multiple MEDORGs around the world, I don't believe it can be called fringe. JonJ937 (talk) 14:15, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::NAPP isn't any kind of peak expert body for psychiatry in Australia. That would be Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists. NAPP don't even have a wiki page. Why are you citing them, Jon? OsFish (talk) 14:29, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Probably for the same reason they're citing the WebMD news portal as if that were WP:MEDRS compliant. Simonm223 (talk) 14:33, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Both of those say the first line treatment for youth/minors with gender dysphoria, not for gender dysphoria in youth. That is not the same thing. This kind of thing would have come up in a proper RFC before and you could have considered changing the question. LunaHasArrived (talk) 14:39, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::There are many MEDRS that mention the same information. For example, this systematic review:

::::::{{quote frame |Most guidelines describe a needs-based approach and five recent guidelines state not all children or adolescents will require psychosocial care. All but one of these promote a model of gender-affirming healthcare and indicate that those with ‘a stable gender identity’ and ‘supportive family and school environment’ may not require psychosocial care. This recommendation marks a departure from earlier guidelines which describe psychosocial care as the mainstay of treatment, and the recent Finnish and Swedish guidelines which describe it as first-line treatment for childhood gender dysphoria/incongruence. [https://adc.bmj.com/content/109/Suppl_2/s73]}}

::::::Another one, from Belgium:

::::::{{quote frame |This is reflected in a changing approach to the problem in many countries: where the Dutch protocol was initially emulated, other choices are now being made. The United Kingdom, Finland, Sweden and Denmark are reforming their transgender care with respect to its pharmacological and surgical interventions. The administration of puberty blockers is highly restricted e.g. to the original target group of the Dutch Protocol, namely children with childhood-onset gender dysphoria persisting into puberty. Additionally, such administration only takes place in study settings. For adolescents, the first-line intervention consists of the treatment of (additional) psychological problems and exploratory psychotherapy. [https://www.belgjpaediatrics.com/index.php/bjp/article/view/340]}}

::::::But ordinary sources are good for this information too, as WP:MEDRS cites as an example:

::::::"The pills were invented by Dr Archibald Foster and released onto the market in 2015". This is not biomedical information and it only requires ordinary RS.

::::::Same principle applies to treatments allowed in various countries. JonJ937 (talk) 09:41, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Did you mean to reply to me? Just as none of what you said applies to my comment about the difference between treating gender dysphoria and treating people who have gender dysphoria. LunaHasArrived (talk) 10:53, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:Yes. There has been no evidence given of conversion therapy working, a great amount of evidence against, and even those countries that recommend or mandate it only do so on the pretext that they don’t trust the evidence base for GAC, not because evidence at all favors psychotherapy Snokalok (talk) 11:36, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

• Yes; this RFC is a barely concealed attempt to relitigate [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&oldid=1289717536#RfC_about_the_pathologization_of_trans_identities the recently concluded RFC on the pathologisation of trans identities]. The phrase "psychotherapy as the first-line treatment for gender dysphoria" means an attempt to resolve a clinical diagnosis of gender dysphoria through making the subject reject their trans identity. That is, to "cure" a trans person. That is, it means conversion therapy. Conversion therapy is not simply fringe, it has actively been banned as harmful in numerous countries. OsFish (talk) 13:06, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Extra comment It's important that people reading the RFC, particulary quotations from national policies and expert consensus documents, understand the distinction between psychotherapy to address issues co-incident with gender dysphoria, which is part of mainstream medicine, and the RFC here, which is about the use of psychotherapy as a cure. The RFC here is referring to attempts to make someone's trans identity go away through therapy, which is fringe.OsFish (talk) 04:06, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::That is not correct. The RFC concerns psychotherapy as the first-line treatment, in its various modalities. Exploratory therapy is one such modality, and the leading UK psychiatric association, UKCP, does not consider it to be conversion therapy. [https://www.psychotherapy.org.uk/news/ukcp-guidance-regarding-gender-critical-views/] JonJ937 (talk) 10:09, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::Your comment is definitive evidence that this is a badly formed RFC. The RFC asks about psychotherapy as “first-line treatment for gender dysphoria in minors”. Not people with gender dysphoria coping with the situation, but specifically to resolve gender dysphoria. Yet here you say it means the use of psychotherapy at any point in any way in a situation where someone might possibly have gender dysphoria. The RFC quite clearly does not ask about that.
• :::Here’s the issue: if the RFC was really about asking something as anodyne as “is psychotherapy ever used in the management of gender dysphoria”, you wouldn’t need to ask it. So why spike your apparently anodyne question with conversion-therapy insinuating phrases like “first line treatment for gender dysphoria”? It seems to me editors are entirely justified to worry whether this RFC is actually an attempt to smuggle support for conversion therapy into the encyclopedia. OsFish (talk) 14:52, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::The UKCP was the only organization to withdraw from the Memorandum of Understanding on Conversion Therapy, signed by dozens of MEDORGS, explicitly because the UKCP wanted to support GET, which is particularly supported by gender critical people. The other signatories all condemned the decision. The decision was explicitly motivated by legal considerations and not wanting to "discriminate" against "gender-critical beliefs" (which are still for medical purposes, FRINGE, see Gender-critical feminism#conversion therapy). Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:11, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
• Yes/Bad RFC. I agree with everyone who says this is just a relitigation of the pathologization RFC. That means it should be closed as attempt to relitigate an existing consensus. However, just for the sake of thoroughness: attempting to "treat" being trans, which we've already agreed is not a mental illness, with psychotherapy is conversion therapy, which is always and obviously WP:FRINGE. Loki (talk) 00:14, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• No, it's not fringe. A position cannot reasonably be labeled fringe if it is supported by multiple national health bodies and reflected in current medical practice across several countries. For example, the UK's National Health Service (NHS) clearly states that psychological therapies (counseling and psychotherapy) are the first line of treatment for young people experiencing gender dysphoria. The use of puberty blockers for transgender children and young people under 18 with gender dysphoria is currently restricted, with an indefinite ban on their routine prescribing for this purpose. This is explicitly outlined on their website. Basically, when a treatment approach is endorsed or implemented by respected national health bodies such as the NHS, it cannot be dismissed as fringe. Considering it Fringe would dismiss evidence-based medical standards. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 08:33, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• :You say {{quote|For example, the UK's National Health Service (NHS) clearly states that psychological therapies (counseling and psychotherapy) are the first line of treatment for young people experiencing gender dysphoria}}
• :But that isn't true. [https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria/treatment/ The NHS page on gender dysphoria] says that a child that may have gender dysphoria will be seen by a multidisciplinary team (which includes a psychotherapist) for assessment. That is, not for treatment (which is the RFC wording).
• :The outcome of the assessment may lead to a variety of paths, only one of which is psychotherapy (others include more gender affirming approaches such as "regular reviews to monitor gender identity development", "parental support or counselling", "group work for young people and their parents" etc.). Even then this does not mean that psychotherapy may used as a first line treatment for gender dysphoria. This is because the NHS subsumes gender dysphoria under a much broader term "gender variant behaviour", most of which, the site says naturally resolves itself during puberty. At no point in the document does it say psychotherapy is a good treatment specifically for gender dysphoria.
• :With regard specifically to someone given a clinical diagnosis of "gender dysphoria" or "gender incongruence", it does not say "first they should receive psychotherapy" or any such words to that effect. Instead, it says {{quote|"From around the age of 16, young people with a diagnosis of gender incongruence or gender dysphoria who meet various clinical criteria may be given gender-affirming hormones alongside psychosocial and psychological support."}}
• :Basically, the NHS appears to take the view that identifying gender dysphoria in minors is tricky, but once it has been identified, supportive options are available until the person is old enough to be considered hormones. OsFish (talk) 05:06, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
• Bad RfC This is a bad RfC and borderline tendentious. It should be closed procedurally as lacking an appropriate RfCBefore. Simonm223 (talk) 14:09, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:No, not fringe. Firstly, I find the the question reasonable and grounded in real-world medical debate. Psychotherapy-first approaches for youth with gender dysphoria are supported or implemented by multiple national health bodies and are reflected in official clinical guidelines or health policy. Psychotherapy-first is not synonymous with conversion therapy. Labeling a treatment model actively used and defended by national health systems as "fringe" is not consistent with Wikipedia standards for evaluating fringe views. Evathedutch (talk) 02:45, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::Do you mean psychotherapy as a means of resolving clinical gender dysphoria, or psychotherapy for addressing any issues that a person with clinical gender dysphoria may also have? This distinction is key. If it's the former, it's conversion therapy. If it's the latter, it's not psychotherapy as the first line of treatment FOR gender dysphoria. OsFish (talk) 04:02, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:@JonJ937, just a heads up: you didn't use the RFC template, so this RFC has not been advertised at WP:RFC/A. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:32, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::Sorry, I have limited experience with this. Thanks for letting me know. I will try to fix it. JonJ937 (talk) 09:37, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:Comment: Here's what the latest WPATH standards of care have to say {{tq|The goal of psychotherapy should never be aimed at modifying a child's gender identity (APA, 2021; Ashley, 2019b; Paré, 2020; SAMHSA, 2015; UN Human Rights Council, 2020), either covertly or overtly. Not all gender diverse children or their families need input from MHPs as gender diversity is not a mental health disorder (Pediatric Endocrine Society, 2020; Telfer et al., 2018). Nevertheless, it is often appropriate and helpful to seek psychotherapy when there is distress or concerns are expressed by parents to improve psychosocial health and prevent further distress (APA, 2015).}}[https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/26895269.2022.2100644]

:The latest published clinical practice guidelines by a dozen MEDORGS said {{tq|psychotherapy is recommended for co-incident disorders, for which there is already an indication due to the co-incident disorder itself. However, it is also recommended or the ‘management of [GD] associated distress.’ None of the studies included in the review in question were able to show a reduction in gender dysphoria through psychotherapy.}}[https://register.awmf.org/de/leitlinien/detail/028-014]

:Every person here who's arguing it isn't FRINGE argued either or both that :

:* 1) the claim transgender identities are frequently caused by mental illness isn't FRINGE in the pathologization RFC,

:* 2) SEGM isn't FRINGE in that RFC (notably, SEGM promotes gender exploratory therapy, a form of psychotherapy/conversion therapy which takes the a priori that transgender identities are frequently caused by mental illness)

:There is no debate in the literature that kids with GD should be provided psychotherapy if they need it. There are no MEDRS (and op-eds don't count, particularly when from orgs known for conversion therapy), that state that gender dysphoria can be reduced through psychotherapy.

:I quote OsFish who put it well: {{tq|If the RFC was really about asking something as anodyne as “is psychotherapy ever used in the management of gender dysphoria”, you wouldn’t need to ask it. So why spike your apparently anodyne question with conversion-therapy insinuating phrases like “first line treatment for gender dysphoria”? It seems to me editors are entirely justified to worry whether this RFC is actually an attempt to smuggle support for conversion therapy into the encyclopedia.}} Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:21, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::Psychotherapy should not be confused with so-called "conversion therapy". In many countries, it is a prioritized approach for addressing gender dysphoria, as it may help individuals find resolution without resorting to irreversible medical interventions. This form of therapy is distinct from conversion therapy, despite claims to the contrary by some advocates of medical transition. Many reliable sources support this therapeutic approach. For example, in the UK, children under 17 are only offered psychological therapy, not medical options. So if health authorities in several countries are using and backing this method, how can we call it fringe? Fringe means something that lacks support from mainstream science, and that clearly isn’t the case here. More sources on this:

::{{quote frame |Existing systematic reviews have led countries including the UK, Finland, and Sweden to promote a cautious approach that prioritises psychotherapy for minors experiencing gender dysphoria or incongruence while restricting puberty blockers to clinical trials. [https://www.bmj.com/content/382/bmj.p1877]}}

::{{quote frame |systematic evidence reviews have underlaid changes in clinical practice in Finland, Sweden, and the UK. Hormonal interventions are no longer recommended as part of the standard approach in these countries; psychotherapy is instead recommended as first-line treatment. [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12011888/]}}

::{{quote frame |The Cass Review was an independent review of pediatric gender services commissioned by the UK’s National Health Service (NHS). It published its final report in April 2024. The Review commissioned seven systematic reviews, an international survey of gender clinics, and formal qualitative research to characterize patients’ experiences and perspectives, and conducted > 1,000 interviews with clinicians, patients, parents, and advocacy groups. Based in part on its commissioned systematic evidence reviews of hormonal interventions, the Review concluded the evidence was weak, and that all patients should receive robust psychosocial support as the first-line approach, whereas PBs and CSH should be used in research protocols or with extreme caution. These recommendations are in-line with Sweden’s and Finland’s clinical guidelines (which were also based on systematic evidence reviews), but diverge sharply from US-based guidelines, which continue to recommend patients who meet certain criteria receive hormonal interventions on a standard-of-care basis. [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11930-025-00404-w]}}

::{{quote frame |Since the beginning of the last decade, treatment for gender incongruence has consisted primarily in gender-affirming medical care. However, in the last 24 months, several international health authorities have raised concerns over the uncertain risk-benefit ratio of using hormonal interventions (specifically "puberty blockers" and cross-sex hormones) as the first-line treatment approach for young people under 18, and are restructuring their systems to prioritize psychotherapy as the first line of treatment. [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10010510/]}} JonJ937 (talk) 10:12, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• Yes/BADRFC. Clear attempt to end run around the pathologisation RFC, and even if it wasn't, OP is trying to be too cute by half to imply conversion therapy without saying the words "conversion therapy". Sceptre (talk) 02:37, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• NO, not fringe. Psychotherapy is a key part of treating gender dysphoria, and many doctors and mental health experts view it as an important first step. A 2024 article in the Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry supports this, saying that psychodynamic therapy should be offered and encouraged. [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11201722/] It also makes clear that this type of therapy is not the same as discredited practice of conversion therapy. Countries like Sweden and Finland have already updated their treatment guidelines to reflect this view. They recommend that young people receive strong mental health support and a full psychological evaluation before starting any medical or surgical treatments. This helps individuals explore their identity in a safe, supportive space and deal with other mental health issues that often come with gender dysphoria. By some estimates, more than 70 percent of young people with gender dysphoria also face conditions like anxiety or depression. [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10021389/] This shows how important it is to give them access to therapy early on. Psychotherapy is a vital part of good, responsible care for gender dysphoria. This is not a fringe opinion but a well-supported approach that puts the long-term health and well-being of young people and their families first. Parker.Josh (talk) 09:46, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• Bad RFC. Clearly tendentious attempt to re-litigate the recently closed RFC by trying to trojan horse a fringe view (conversion therapy) within a very specific wording of psychotherapy. Nothing new has been presented since this is a rerun of the arguments JonJ bludgeoned in the last RFC. (Proof of bludgeoning these exact same arguments: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RelmC#c-RelmC-20250214105100-Chess-20250214052100]) Relm (talk) 09:55, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

{{cob}}

IMHO needs gutting. Doug Weller talk 08:20, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:Judging by the sourcing, this seems the appropriate method of dealing with the article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:21, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

More eyes needed at an RfC at Wikiproject Scientology about to how to characterise the writings of L. Ron Hubbard on "Dianetics". Cambial — foliar❧ 13:41, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

• {{la|Synchronicity}}

Huge "Scientific basis" section being edit-warred in. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:13, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• {{al|Andrew Huberman}}

Some discussion how to handle Huberman's (fringe) science and its reception in the article's lead at Talk:Andrew Huberman#Bias in introduction - should go in separate criticism section?. More eyes could help. Bon courage (talk) 07:28, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I've recently encountered promoters of fringe material on the talk pages of acupuncture and Medical Medium commenting with walls of AI-generated text. Any guidelines for this? It's obnxious and even more a waste of time than usual. 03:44, 17 May 2025 (UTC) ScienceFlyer (talk) 03:44, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:This is something the community tried, and failed, to get WP:PAGs for. Some remnants of the effort remains in an essay, and the relevant bit is WP:LLMTALK, which probably describes what happens in practice. Use of LLMs in communication, especially by WP:PROFRINGE editors, has the potential to burn an enormous amount of editor time as it floods the zone with shit. Bon courage (talk) 03:54, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::I'd argue that LLM discussion, like any time-wasting behavior on talk pages, is already covered by WP:TALK, WP:ETIQUETTE, and possibly WP:DISRUPTIVE. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 21:03, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Yeah, be sure it really is LLM text before you say someone is doing it. But machine-generated text walls are broadly perceived as disruptive. You are generally within your rights to ask people doing that to stop doing it. Simonm223 (talk) 23:09, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:If someone is using AI generated comments then that's a signal to shut down the conversation unless they stop and if they refuse/deny the next step is ANI. There's absolutely no point wasting ones breath on that crap. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)