Talk:Irreversible Damage

ROGD in the body

Can we add the following to the Background section? Much of this content has been in the lead for a long time without corresponding content in the body.

The contentious concept of rapid-onset gender dysphoria, which Irreversible Damage endorses, was first proposed in a 2018 paper by Lisa Littman. ROGD is not recognized as a medical diagnosis by any major professional institution and is not backed by credible scientific evidence.

References

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:57, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. Loki (talk) 20:46, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

This analysis and history lesson isnt related to the book --FMSky (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the book itself and by reliable sources covering the book. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:51, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

It is not neutral or accurate to say that ROGD is "not backed by credible scientific evidence". I documented above on this talk page what the sources actually say. You are cherry-picking a source. Besides that, it's not about the subject of this article. That debate can happen at the linked page. Just say that the book supports the idea. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 22:28, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

You presented some evidence above, and multiple editors tried to point out the errors. We have your disputed primary source analysis clashing with the statements of reliable secondary sources. The very short statement about ROGD, a focus of both the book and coverage of the book, is very due here. Not mentioning the mainstream view would be an NPOV violation. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:34, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting sources. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 22:37, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Please don't accuse editors of misrepresenting sources, especially when they do not appear to be misrepresenting sources. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:53, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

All the sources and evidence “supporting” the concept of ROGD are incredibly biased, coming from transgendertrend.com and similar sites. She only interviewed the so-called ROGD kids’ parents, who already believed their kids had ROGD. In conclusion it is quite safe to say ROGD is not backed by any real sources. Jacksfilms enthusiast (talk) 18:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm still not quite sure why content on ROGD was removed from the lead given how much of the book's premise it is based on, as well as the resulting criticisms of the book, but yes we should at minimum be mentioning this in the article's body if we weren't already. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:56, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

It wasn't removed from the lead, but the two bits about ROGD were split apart. I'd favor some reassembly. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:10, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Huh, for some reason I thought the outcome of the Big ol' bundle o' refs discussion was that it was removed from the lead. Otherwise yes, I would suggest that we should keep the two bits of text on ROGD together. When this was discussed back in August 2022, the two bits were kept together in order to comply with WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDSCI. I don't really see any arguments here, or in the discussion from January as to why this wouldn't still be the case. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

For the record, I'm agnostic to content, not to standards. GMG^talk 01:37, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

• Considering it's one of the critical topics of the book, it's rather weird it wasn't in the body before this. Your summary and sources, especially since they are sources on the book itself and not separately on ROGD, seem good for that. I have no idea what Cuñado is talking about above. All of the high level sources and scientific commentary on the subject of ROGD, including in that article proper, are very clear on it being an unsubstantiated and refuted hypothesis verging on outright pseudoscience (particularly in its usage in popular culture separate from scientific evidence). Silverseren^C 02:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  Agree entirely with Silverseren. Red Fiona (talk) 10:42, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

• FYI, I posted about this at the NPOV noticeboard about 12 hours ago. The thread is WP:NPOVN#Irreversible Damage. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this passage is reasonable and is clearly what the sources relevant to the book say. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 15:12, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Above in #Lead description I described the issue in detail, and I'd be happy to repeat the arguments and sources here if needed. The issue is pretty straightforward and the activists that came here to trash the author are misrepresenting sources and violating NPOV pretty openly, regardless of what the chat sounds like. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:54, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I see you're once again calling people who disagree with you "activists", further showcasing that you shouldn't be editing in this topic area at all. Silverseren^C 19:06, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not calling people who disagree with me activists, I'm calling people who are openly violating core content policies, "with a specific ideological, religious, political, national or other agenda" who are putting "the goal of promoting their views above that of improving the encyclopedia", activists. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Cuñado, if you have behavioral issues to discuss, ANI is thataway ––>. I'm sure you will have no trouble convincing the community if there is indeed tendentious editing going on here as you claim. However for the time being there does appear to be a rough consensus for FFF's addition. I'm persuaded as well, especially since WP:FRINGE requires us to identify fringe beliefs wherever we discuss them in article space. That guideline trumps other competing concerns such as e.g. WP:COATRACK, which is after all only an essay. Generalrelative (talk) 21:08, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Generalrelative I think you're missing the point of the content dispute. The source you inserted is a self-described blog to support a statement that a theory is not backed by any "credible scientific evidence". The actual statements from the original researcher and medical organizations are more along the lines of "there is not enough evidence to endorse it and it needs further study".

Sources on ROGD

Littman's original article: "Emerging hypotheses include the possibility of a potential new subcategory of gender dysphoria (referred to as rapid-onset gender dysphoria) that has not yet been clinically validated and the possibility of social influences and maladaptive coping mechanisms. Parent-child conflict may also explain some of the findings. More research that includes data collection from AYAs, parents, clinicians and third party informants is needed to further explore the roles of social influence, maladaptive coping mechanisms, parental approaches, and family dynamics in the development and duration of gender dysphoria in adolescents and young adults."

When the article was revised, the same conclusion reads: "ROGD appears to represent an entity that is distinct from the gender dysphoria observed in individuals who have previously been described as transgender. The worsening of mental wellbeing and parent-child relationships and behaviors that isolate AYAs from their parents, families, non-transgender friends and mainstream sources of information are particularly concerning. More research is needed to better understand this phenomenon, its implications and scope."

The WPATH statement: "a proposed clinical phenomenon that may or may not warrant further peer-reviewed scientific investigation... WPATH asserts that knowledge of the factors contributing to gender identity development in adolescence is still evolving and not yet fully understood by scientists, clinicians, community members, and other stakeholders in equal measure... WPATH encourages continued scientific exploration within a culture of academic freedom, not censorship."

The AusPATH statement: "“ROGD” is an acronym describing a proposed phenomenon, with insufficient peer-reviewed scientific evidence to support its implementation and/or use within clinical, community, social and legal settings... AusPATH encourages continued scientific exploration within a culture of academic freedom, not censorship.

The Bauer article: "We did not find support within a clinical population for a new etiologic phenomenon of rapid onset gender dysphoria during adolescence... Similar analyses should be replicated using additional clinical and community data sources.

The statement you re-inserted into the article is someone's misrepresentation of the status of ROGD, published on a blog. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 01:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

published on a blog Nope. Per WP:SBM, Science-Based Medicine is a generally reliable source, with a credible editorial board and a robust set of editorial guidelines.

You've been a bit selective with your eliding in your quotations.

• The WPATH statement also states The term “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD)” is not a medical entity recognized by any major professional association, nor is it listed as a subtype or classification in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) or International Classification of Diseases (ICD).
• The AusPATH statement likewise contains The term “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD)” is not a diagnosis or health condition recognised by any major professional association, nor is it listed as a subtype or classification in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) or International Classification of Diseases (ICD).
• And the Bauer article states This putative phenomenon was posited based on survey data from a convenience sample of parents recruited from websites, and may represent the perceptions or experiences of those parents, rather than of adolescents, particularly those who may enter into clinical care.

When we look at what the WPATH and AusPATH statements actually say, it's pretty clear. ROGD is not a recognised diagnosis by any major medical organisation. As for the lack of credible scientific evidence, the CAAPS position statement published in 2021 stated There are no sound empirical studies of ROGD and it has not been subjected to rigorous peer-review processes that are standard for clinical science. In the time since that statement was published, there have been three papers published; the November 2021 paper by Bauer (quoted above), an August 2022 paper by Turban et. al, and a March 2023 paper by Turban et. al. All three have found evidence that runs counter to the ROGD hypothesis. And to my knowledge, to date there have been no researchers independent of Littman who have found any evidence in support of the theory. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:03, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

And this is all plainly exhibited in our ROGD article. Cuñado seems to very much be promoting a WP:FRINGE position here. Silverseren^C 04:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for pulling this together Sideswipe9th. I'll add that calling for more research (or "scientific exploration") shouldn't be read as any kind of endorsement. It's some of the most boilerplate language there is in science/medicine. We have an article on the cliché. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

"ROGD is not a recognised diagnosis by any major medical organisation."

Well obviously. Because it is a social contagion. Not a medical diagnosis.No one said it was. Except people denying its real. 75.143.54.190 (talk) 19:48, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

I think that text was a good and necessary addition. When the main thing the book is about is X (as discussed by RS), and the main thing about X is that it's not credible/credited (as discussed by RS), and RS about the book point that out, it'd frankly be undue (arguably profringe) for the article to leave it out. If anything, the current wording is a bit too wishy-washy and could stand to be even more to the point. -sche (talk) 15:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks -sche. I'm in agreement with you about how we're characterizing ROGD. We had a RfC about the wording a year and a half ago that ended in no consensus. I'm not sure that enough has changed since then to try again, but I'm not opposed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:06, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

You're pretty much just describing textbook SYNTH. We don't go to Animal Farm and include a bunch of otherwise unrelated sources about husbandry, to make sure readers have the broader context of why Boxer is being carted away to be turned into glue. Context about slaughtering horses to make glue should go on the main article for Adhesive.

If sources about the book cover it, then we use the sources covering it in the context of the book. The only reason we're having this discussion is because it feels politically timely and topical in popular culture in a way that horses and glue don't. But it doesn't matter. It's the same principle. If we're using sources generally and not sources about the subject of the article, then that is our own original research. GMG^talk 10:51, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

And I'm not sure it's worth mentioning, because it's been a staple of this talk page, but I still very much get the impression that I'm the only one here who actually read the daggum book. GMG^talk 10:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Re If sources about the book cover it, then we use the sources covering it in the context of the book. So we're in agreement that the added text about the book, which is cited to references about the book, is good? As I said, we include it if [...] RS about the book do, and the RS cited above do. -sche (talk) 12:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what specific text you are referring to. I've been off working on a bunch of random stuff and arguing with a COI account for a logistics company. But in general yes, as I said above, I'm agnostic to content, not to standards. Using sources not about the subject is original research. If it's relevant, we are not the ones who decide that, the sources are. Ours is to simply follow their lead. GMG^talk 13:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

The debate here is not whether ROGD is credible or not, it's whether that statement belongs in the first paragraph of this article, which is about a book. The first sentence already describes ROGD as "controversial" and links to the ROGD article which contains criticisms. The second sentence is unnecessary and is hurting NPOV. Fnordware (talk) 16:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

The second sentence is required by WP:NPOV (and the WP:FRINGE guideline which builds on it). Anytime we mention ROGD we need to make clear to the reader that it is not an accepted medical diagnosis. In this case that's the first paragraph. Failing to do so would be WP:FALSEBALANCE. Generalrelative (talk) 17:05, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

No we do not. A simple mention of ROGD is not an endorsement of it, does not require a rebuttal. It is already described as "controversial" which is an accurate and neutral description. Fnordware (talk) 06:10, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: would you care to respond to the very reasonable objections expressed here? Zacwill (talk) 15:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I think my position here is pretty clear, as it was in prior discussions here and here (among other prior discussions). I'd rather not just trade assertions without engaging in discussion about actual sources. Are there new ones that might shift the consensus here? Is there a new argument to be made about the existing sources? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

As Fnordware said above, we're not talking about the reliability of the statement – we're talking about whether it belongs in the first paragraph of the article. The sources are irrelevant. Zacwill (talk) 15:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I may have misinterpreted Fnordware's "A simple mention of ROGD is not an endorsement of it, does not require a rebuttal." I understood that to mean he was in fact questioning the reliability of the statement. Are you concerned primarily with placement in the first paragraph? Your edits removed it from the lead entirely. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it belongs in the lead at all. It's enough to note that the concept of ROGD is "controversial" and then include more detailed commentary in the body of the article. Note that the statement I removed also appears more or less verbatim in the Background section. Zacwill (talk) 16:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Zacwill, you are correct, and I think there is consensus to change it. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:31, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

There was never consensus to change it and I can't believe you're still beating this dead horse a year later. Silverseren^C 21:06, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Maybe I should have said, there is not consensus to keep it. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:54, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

The lead line is a shortened version of the relevant body content, which is as it should be. I don't think noting that ROGD is "controversial" is sufficient; I think it's especially important to pair biomedical-adjacent, fringe-adjacent ideas in conjunction with the mainstream view. Also, MOS:CONTROVERSIAL gives some reasons why "controversial" is not preferred as a stand-alone descriptor. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

revert

How, exactly, are you justifying this revert? Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

As I said in the edit summary, per the rough consensus in this section. There is a rough consensus for the version that Firefanglefeathers drafted, which I restored. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:37, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Cuñado, don't you have the framing backward? What justification would you put forward for your bold edit? At a glance, it looks like you replaced the content we (roughly) agreed upon above with content that is cited to sources that are not about the book. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I have reverted your change. It seems that there is a loose consensus that the tag is unwarranted. If you disagree, then please work with the other editors to arrive at a new consensus. Thank you. Hist9600 (talk) 00:46, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Book's misgendering of its subjects

I am discussing the following edits: (tagging involved editors Cuñado, Ezra Fox):

Show diff contents

• 21:55, 7 February 2025  Ezra Fox (talk | contribs): (Previously it said people "characterized" this as misgendering. That is misleading, it is misgendering, as in it fits the exact definition of what misgendering is. I think my edit here is mildly sloppy, maybe I'll tighten it up later or others can feel free to.)

  −

  There were several boycotts aimed at the book which characterized it as [[anti-trans]] and its use of "she" to refer to teenagers identifying as [[transmasculine]] and [[non-binary]] as [[misgendering]].

  +

  There were several boycotts aimed at the book which characterized it as [[anti-trans]] and took issue with its use of "she" to refer to teenagers who identified as [[transmasculine]] and [[non-binary]].

• 16:11, 9 February 2025  SreySros (talk | contribs): (ce, tighten prose)

  −

  There were several boycotts aimed at the book which characterized it as [[anti-trans]] and took issue with its use of "she" to refer to teenagers who identified as [[transmasculine]] and [[non-binary]].

  +

  There were several boycotts aimed at the book which criticized Shrier's [[misgendering]] of the book's [[transmasculine]] and [[non-binary]] subjects and which characterized the book as [[anti-trans]].

• 21:32, 10 February 2025  Cuñado (talk | contribs): (Undid revision 1274849274 by SreySros (talk): don't put the criticism in wikivoice)

  −

  There were several boycotts aimed at the book which criticized Shrier's [[misgendering]] of the book's [[transmasculine]] and [[non-binary]] subjects and which characterized the book as [[anti-trans]].

  +

  There were several boycotts aimed at the book which characterized it as [[anti-trans]] and took issue with its use of "she" to refer to teenagers who identified as [[transmasculine]] and [[non-binary]].

I am perplexed by the desire to tiptoe around Shrier's treatment of her subjects as use of "she" to refer to teenagers who identified as transmasculine and non-binary. There is a (simpler, cleaner) term for precisely that: misgendering. Use of this term is not criticism -- there is no dispute among the sources (or by the book itself, for that matter) as to whether Shrier does misgender her subjects. In fact, it's clearer, as the boycotts were not just about Shrier's use of "she", they were also about other forms of misgendering, such as refering to her subjects as "girls".

Use of the term misgendering is a neutral description of the book's treatment of its subjects. Proponents of the book (and the author herself) would simply see this misgendering as a positive thing. To be clear, I favor the following language: There were several boycotts aimed at the book which criticized Shrier's misgendering of the book's transmasculine and non-binary subjects and which characterized the book as anti-trans. Srey Sros^talk 17:44, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the sources in the relevant section don't actually focus on misgendering either way, and in fact don't really describe boycotts per se but rather retailers taking the book down in response to backlash.

So what I would rephrase this as is The book was harshly criticized for repeating anti-trans medical misinformation. Several retailers refused to sell it in response to these criticisms. Loki (talk) 19:00, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I would be happy with that, I didn't like it before because it said she was "accused" of misgendering, which is nonsensical, so I removed it. She did misgender, before it made it sound like that was up for debate. But I didn't want to be controversial with my edit. However I would be happy with your or Loki's version. Ezra Fox🦊 • (talk) 23:56, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

@LokiTheLiar Ah yeah you're right, that does stick to the sources better -- I made the mistake of trusting the WP coverage and misremembered what the boycotts were about. I support Loki's over mine as well. Srey Sros^talk 18:06, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

The book was harshly criticized for repeating anti-trans medical misinformation: that wording is putting a criticism in wiki-voice, and it doesn't reflect the majority of reputable sources. The hypothesis of the book is that there is a social hysteria causing an unnatural increase in natal females identifying as other-than-women during adolescence. It's very hard to describe that while adhering to the norm among some circles that self-identification of gender at any stage must be backfilled to their birth. It's accurate that she was criticized, so word it in a way that doesn't make the criticism stated as fact. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:42, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

The very first paragraph of this article is:

Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters is a 2020 book by Abigail Shrier, published by Regnery Publishing, which endorses the controversial concept of rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD). ROGD is not recognized as a medical diagnosis by any major professional institution nor is it backed by credible scientific evidence.

I don't think repeating the same (well-sourced) criticism a second time in different words makes it less true. Loki (talk) 07:55, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Either way, we definitely don't use editorializing language like "harshly". GMG^talk 13:27, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

harshly is an accurate descriptor, but has a negative connotation. A word like forcefully or severely would also be accurate while having a more neutral connotation Ezra Fox🦊 • (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm fine with either of those. Loki (talk) 00:18, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

We would generally use none of these modifiers unless that is the language the sources use. We don't take it upon ourselves to come up with colorful descriptions. GMG^talk 18:33, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Remember WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and this is a good example why. Referencing another page making the same error does not justify bad writing on this page. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 05:10, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I am referencing the first paragraph of this page. Please read more carefully, both the talk page and the article itself. Loki (talk) 06:15, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Revise assessment to conform with recent medical developments

The framing of this wikipedia article should be rewritten to conform to recent developments in the treatment of children with gender dysphoria. While support for the ROGD hypothesis is still not very substantial, research is increasingly suggesting that the central message of the book, that children are being «hurt» (for lack of a better term), might in fact be more accurate than the framing of this wiki suggests. Following events like e.g. the Cass review in the UK, there has also been a crackdown on gender-confirming treatment and administering of puberty blockers to children.

The contents and framing of this wiki has thus not aged very well, and the focus should be moved from the current status of whether or not ROGD is true (arguably a nitpick), to whether the central message of the book holds up. DJHellduck (talk) 07:01, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

The Cass Review has been overwhelmingly rejected, debunked, and discredited by every major medical organization outside of the UK. The only orgs outside the UK that have at all sided with the Cass Review are the health departments of far right governments whose people are appointed by said far right governments. Snokalok2 (talk) 07:03, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

To my knowledge, the Cass review has not been rejected, debunked and discredited by every major medical organization outside the UK. DJHellduck (talk) 08:20, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Then I would suggest reading the supporting sources on the relevant Wikipedia articles that demonstrate this. We had very well-attended RfCs on the topic. Simonm223 (talk) 14:01, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

While there exists a small fringe that supports the ROGD hypothesis, the prevailing scientific consensus continues to be that the ROGD hypothesis is without merit. I would take great care not to conflate changes in public policy or polling with changes to the evidence base. HenrikHolen (talk) 15:31, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't think these comments are accurately reflecting the consensus. For example, the article Gender dysphoria in adolescence: examining the rapid-onset hypothesis concludes:

In summary, it becomes clear that neither prematurely adopting ROGD as a valid explanatory model nor its hasty condemnation as transphobic is an appropriate response. It is hard to deny that Littman’s research has made an important contribution to the discourse. It is now the task of the scientific community to take up this contribution and build on it with further research. We have to face the fact that ROGD may provide a convenient pathogenic explanatory model for those who are fundamentally opposed to medical transitioning of adolescents. In our opinion, however, the correct response to such possible tendencies is not to suppress research in this direction, but to strengthen it, so that evidence-based judgments of its validity are possible.

This article on Irreversible Damage has been a poor example of NPOV for years. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:03, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, how does one obscure opinion piece that comes out to “more research is needed” on a topic which we have full MEDORG sources weighing against do anything to help your argument? Snokalok2 (talk) 17:59, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Calling that an "opinion piece" just proved my point. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:10, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Things like the Cass review is not policy, it is a review. It leads to policy. In this case, the policies around treatment of gender dysphoria that happened in the UK (and still happens in the US to my knowledge), diverged from medical science, and thus were corrected. Like this wiki ought to be.

Personally, I don’t give a damn about the ROGD hypothesis. My problem is that this article uses the criticism of that fringe hypothesis to discredit the medically mainstream premise of the book. This is intellectually dishonest.

Put the ROGD criticism where it belongs: under «Criticism». DJHellduck (talk) 08:36, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

It is not accurate to say that the premise of the book is within the medical mainstream. We have multiple sources describing it as fringe, and you have offered no sources disputing this.

You have only mentioned the Cass Review. There is dispute over whether or not the Cass Review is an acceptable source, but regardless of what stance we take on that question, having searched through the 500 or so pages that comprise the Cass review and the subsidiary York reviews, the term Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria does not appear in the reviews even once. HenrikHolen (talk) 15:43, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Having reviewed those sources, am I correct when I say they are mostly American blog posts? How are those weighted heavier than insights from large, paradigm-shifting review commissions undertaken by liberal democracies with multipartisan political support? I really expect a proper justification here, for what you describe as «fringe» is really only one part of the picture, something which hardly justifies how the book is presented in the current form of this article. DJHellduck (talk) 17:57, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources that back up your assertions here, if not this exercise is pointless LunaHasArrived (talk) 18:00, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

From the rest of the discussion, it seems most here are familiar with what we’re talking about. But you can find the Cass review at this link - it is the most comprehensive review currently available I think. If I remember correctly, the medical substance is mostly in the sub reports, while the final report mainly focuses on policy.

https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20250310143933/https://cass.independent-review.uk/home/publications/final-report/ DJHellduck (talk) 08:50, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, where does the 400pg document (where there's no consensus as to it's reliability in a medical setting for Wikipedia) does it mention the book irreversible damage. If it doesn't please bring sources that do. LunaHasArrived (talk) 10:59, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

I’m afraid this is the current state of the field when it comes to gender dysphoria. Wikipedians unfortunately don’t get to decide how the world really is - that is for science and philosophy to do, and per my understanding of the guidelines of best practice for Wikipedia, a review is the better source to use, not cherrypicked quotes from individual studies, blog posts or newspaper articles (for that matter nor «consensuses» among whomever participates on the Talk section of the Wikipedia pages).

You will rarely find works of popular science referenced in actual scientific literature and other important documents. DJHellduck (talk) 12:37, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

A quick look at the Cass Review page's Global reception section shows it being rebuked by The Endocrine Society, The Australian medical community at large, The New Zealand medical community (minus the right-wing government), The Canadian medical community, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Japan, Poland, The Netherlands, and the United States (minus the right-wing government); and a look at the puberty blockers page shows, in the time since the Cass Review has been published, additional support for puberty blockers from the medical communities of Chile, France, and Italy.

And none in support of the Cass Review other than the UK themselves, the Trump admin, and the NZ First admin. So yeah, this isn't the state of gender dysphoria research - what you're saying is thoroughly debunked by the entire global medical community. Snokalok2 (talk) 12:48, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

This is a good opportunity to remind everyone that Wikipedia is not a proper source (and for wikipedians especially, due to contamination effects), and a list from there certainly does not count as evidence, especially in a domain with a lot of strong feelings and activists.

Yes, this particular review tossed a torch into the theatre, and received some loud pushback. But it did indeed move the bar significantly. And it has shifted both scientific discourse as well as policy worldwide, either through tightening regulation, or through cancelled liberalisation. Such significant and subtle effects would not appear among the noise in Wikipedia lists, and honestly, it is hard to see how it could, as there wouldn’t be many blogposts or newspaper articles that would suffice as source in a concrete operational sense.

But this discussion has really digressed. The point is: this particular wiki page should be reworked so it presents a more neutral representation of the book. DJHellduck (talk) 17:27, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

To the last point, why? You have presented no sources that discuss this book and haven't given any reason why the sources already used are unsuitable or being misrepresented. LunaHasArrived (talk) 17:44, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

I see no problem with including those sources in the article, and they absolutely have their place (typically to balance out things like the «Book of the year» award from the Economist). It is not appropriate to present it like it is currently. A few negative blog posts from Americans of minor importance (I am correct that they are blog posts?) do not warrant discrediting the entire book from the very outset of the article. This lack of neutrality goes against the whole essence of the Wikipedia project. DJHellduck (talk) 18:14, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

That's why I linked you to the pages, so you can go there and see the tens of sources for all of that that would be incredibly cumbersome to repost here when I can just link you to the page.

Yes, this particular review tossed a torch into the theatre, and received some loud pushback. But it did indeed move the bar significantly. You keep saying these things with absolutely no assertion of truth. At least I'm referring you to a list of sources, you're just sitting here and saying "No because actually let me tell you a better story" Snokalok2 (talk) 02:17, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

I guess that would have been a nightmare to read, so thanks for not doing that.

I had hoped that arguments would mostly suffice (what you call storytelling), but I guess wikipedians need more concrete materiel. I did not start this discussion thread to prove Irreversible damage «correct», but to make that case that the framing should be changed: in essence that discrediting the book in the introduction and the main sections of the page is inappropriate, as the central message of the book is not fringe, but in fact fits with part of the medical mainstream.

If you feel the Cass review is not sufficient evidence for this assertion, then similar stances have been taken by e.g. the Swedish medical society and the Norwegian medical authorities (if you have problems understanding these sources, then understand why I did not post them to begin with). This is the state of the field. This is part of the medical mainstream. Thus so is the main message of Irreversable damage, and the Wikipedia page must reflect that.

A list of criticisms of the Cass review on a Wikipedia page is not a source, but an illustration of how science and policy development works. As scientists and public servants we know this, and know how to read and navigate it. The public browsing Wikipedia doesn’t necessarily. DJHellduck (talk) 07:41, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

What you have linked is not the views of the Norwegian Health Authority, but of an unrelated review. The official recommendations of the Norwegian health authority is found here: https://www.helsebiblioteket.no/innhold/nasjonal-faglig-retningslinje/kj%C3%B8nnsinkongruens#utredning-behandling-og-oppfolging-ved-kjonnsinkongruens-bor-generelle-prinsipper-for-utredning-og-behandling-folges.

This report recommends gender affirming care and makes no mention of ROGD (nor does the paper you linked for that matter). I urge you to scrutinize your sources more thoroughly before proposing changes. HenrikHolen (talk) 14:23, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I seem to have mischaracterised the Norwegian source - it’s a Norwegian government commission report, not policy. My mistake. Though, weren’t you one who suggested to disregard policy as evidence in the first place? Then this characterisation must surely be a higher quality source? ;)

Joke aside, no-one is suggesting that physicians should stop giving gender-affirming care. That’s what we call a straw-man argument. Though: all the sources I have provided either recommend on medical grounds restriction of irreversible treatments for children, or lament that this restricting is indeed taking place (quote: «Health authorities in Norway and several other countries have recently tightened access to puberty blockers for transgender adolescents»). Not categorically banning it, but restricting it because the evidence is poor that the treatments are safe. This is also the main message of the book Irreversible damage.

To reiterate: a source doesn’t have to have «ROGD» or «Irreversible damage» show up in a word search to address the validity of the underlying claims. That doesn’t mean the sources mentioned should be cited on the page as direct support for the book, but they should inform us the editors about whether the book deserves to be discredited in the main text, or whether the (rightful) criticism should be put under a Criticism section. Of course, we could use them to support it explicitly as well, but in my opinion that would probably take this too close to WP:NOR. DJHellduck (talk) 19:29, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

• I don't think your summary is accurate, and you wildly overstate the significance and impact of Cass' opinions; but even beyond that, we have to use sources that actually discuss this book. If your assertion that the political positions taken by the British government have somehow changed the position of the best available academic sources on the subject, such that the reception of this book has shifted, you'd have to demonstrate it by showing sources that actually demonstrate that the reception of this book shifted. If you can't find those, then it's likely that you misunderstood the larger situation. --Aquillion (talk) 21:55, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

  I’m unsure if you understand the nature of what we discuss here. The problem isn’t the sources, it’s the underlying assumptions. Currently, these are that the premise of the book is fringe, and should be described as such on the page, discrediting the book in the process. This is demonstratively false. I gave some more sources to Snokalok2 above (the Cass review was apparently not sufficient for some), that demonstrate how the premise of the book (that early treatment of gender dysphoria might be hurting children) is in fact medically mainstream. Here’s an additional reputable source that also state explicitly that the medical paradigm is changing (first paragraph). DJHellduck (talk) 13:35, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

No, the book's position remains fringe; if you think you can demonstrate otherwise, you have to demonstrate it. That link is to an opinion piece, which obviously can't be used to rebut the mountain of high-quality peer-reviewed academic sourcing establishing that ROGD is a fringe theory; but even if it weren't, it doesn't mention ROGD, it doesn't mention the book, and so on. You need a source that mentions Irreversible Damage in its text if you want to use it on this article; and you need a source that mentions ROGD if you want to talk about that. --Aquillion (talk) 14:34, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I’m not sure what you’re going at here. The sources used as justification for the fringe label is a few blog posts. The «opinion piece» I linked to is from a respectable peer-reviewed medical outlet indexed in pub-med and others. The author also generally disagrees with the conclusions of the Cass review, which makes the assertion of its impact on the medical field more credible.

Whether or not there is an explicit reference to ROGD in particular in the supporting sources, is irrelevant when deciding on the fringe classification for the totality of Irreparable damage. The book should have the same treatment as any other book with conteoversial content. Put the criticism where it belongs: under Criticism. DJHellduck (talk) 18:20, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Criticism May be a useful read as to why we join the criticisms of the book into the larger reception section. Reliable sources do say that she specifically endorses ROGD which is a concept widely condemned by MEDORGS and to which there is no published evidence currently for (at last time I checked) so it's notable to say that this theory which is popular politically is fringe medically speaking which is why we place it prominently in this article. If you have any specific complaints with article content or with sourcing please be specific. LunaHasArrived (talk) 20:08, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

That the criticism is currently in a Reactions section is to ensure a neutral point of view, am I right (cf. Wikipedia:Criticism)? How does this intention square with the blatant discreditation placed in the main part of the introduction? DJHellduck (talk) 20:47, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

We aren't descriditing the book in the opening, we are accurately displaying the medical consensus on ROGD as per WP: fringe. LunaHasArrived (talk) 22:35, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I get why it is written like that. My problem is that this takes a legitimate criticism of aspects of the book, the ROGD hypothesis, which according to the blog posts is not medically mainstream, and uses it to discredit the whole message of the book, which in itself is not fringe as I have demonstrated with the sources provided in this conversation. Isn’t this abusing the fringe label to suppress one side in a societal debate? DJHellduck (talk) 06:18, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Isn’t this abusing the fringe label to suppress one side in a societal debate? Half of the English speaking world believes that vaccines are a plot to microchip your children. Wikipedia isn’t about catering to societal opinions, it’s about giving the most accurate information possible based on reliable and vetted sources Snokalok2 (talk) 07:01, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

True, there is little debate in the mainstream medical field on whether vaccines are safe or not. This in contrast to the safety of gender affirmative treatment for children, where there is great debate, and where practices are tightening. The sources I have provided is a documentation of this. DJHellduck (talk) 10:55, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Since few convincing objections have been added to this discussion, I propose moving forward with revising the page according to the concerns in the original post.

This means reframing the page so the central message of the book is no longer framed as fringe, but as resonating with parts of mainstream medical discourse (the appropriate caveats vrt. the inadequate scientific evidence underlying the ROGD hypothesis should still be mentioned, but severely toned down especially in the page body, and possibly be moved to the Reception section altogether).

Thorough work should also be done with regards to the overall content and tone of the entire page. This especially goes for the Summary section, the majority of which is awkwardly phrased, and does not seem to summarise the actual content and message of the book very clearly or neutrally. Whether the lack of clarity is because of a lack of fluency or cherrypicking of content, can be debated, but as it stands now it is not presentable.

I can take it upon myself to revise the body, and will do so once I get around to it. I’d appreciate if someone else could eventually do the rest of the page and especially the summary section. DJHellduck (talk) 13:12, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

That's not how this works. You don't get to say "I'm not convinced" and rewrite the page on those grounds. As it stands, you have no consensus in this thread for anything of the sort - especially not based on your own opinion counter to what the medical community has settled its opinion on.

On those grounds, if you try, I will revert. Snokalok2 (talk) 13:16, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

I haven’t supplied opinion, but argumentation based on reputable, mainstream sources. There has been little convincing pushback so far, but if you have something new to share, please do.

As it stands now, and which I have also communicated earlier, a main principle of Wikipedia is the neutral point of view (WP:NPOV), and the current state of this particular Wikipedia page does not conform to this. Reading the discussions in this particular talk, but also in previous talks, there is little consensus wrt. the appropriateness of the current version of this page. However, even if there was a consensus (there seem to be a substantial number of people apparently watching this page) that agrees with the current state, that is quite irrelevant — as explicitly stated in the guidelines: WP:NPOV «… is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus».

It you are intent on initiating a revert war, then go ahead, but that is not constructive (some might even call it WP:disruptive). I guess this would eventually go to arbitration then, which is pleasant to no-one. DJHellduck (talk) 16:00, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

The book's position is obviously fringe according to reliable sources and that's true whether or not you want to hear it. Consensus is not based on whether any individual editor thinks the consensus is "convincing". Loki (talk) 16:10, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Which reliable sources? The only sources I have been given that support the fringe label are mediocre things like blogposts. Meanwhile, Cuñado supplied a perfectly reasonable review of the ROGD hypothesis, written by actual medical researchers in a peer-reviewed journal, which did not discard it at all, but instead described ROGD as a potential subgroup of gender dysphoria along late- and early onset. I quote from the conclusion of the paper:

In summary, it becomes clear that neither prematurely adopting ROGD as a valid explanatory model nor its hasty condemnation as transphobic is an appropriate response. It is hard to deny that Littman’s research has made an important contribution to the discourse. It is now the task of the scientific community to take up this contribution and build on it with further research. We have to face the fact that ROGD may provide a convenient pathogenic explanatory model for those who are fundamentally opposed to medical transitioning of adolescents. In our opinion, however, the correct response to such possible tendencies is not to suppress research in this direction, but to strengthen it, so that evidence-based judgments of its validity are possible.

This clearly categorises the ROGD hypothesis as an Alternative theoretical formulation, or at worst Questionable science, cf. the pseudoscience section of WP:NPOVFAQ. In addition, the public health perspective of the book, that early treatment of gender dysphoria is potentially harmful, is clearly among the medical mainstream, as demonstrated by my earlier sources. DJHellduck (talk) 16:48, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah fun thing about that "review", it never actually calls itself a review - it calls itself an "article". The only times the word "review" are even used are in the citations, and in a line about how the fact that Littman's work got through peer-review means it's rigorous. It's not a review, it's an opinion piece with citations. Drop the stick. Snokalok2 (talk) 16:58, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

From the abstract:

The purpose of this article is to analyze this theory and its associated hypotheses against the existing evidence base and to discuss its potential implications for future research and the advancement of treatment paradigms.

That’s the literal definition of a scientific review buddy. DJHellduck (talk) 17:02, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Well that's a very nice opinion you've formed for yourself, but as was said above, your own personal opinion does not trump the word of countless MEDORGS that ROGD is fringe. Snokalok2 (talk) 17:06, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

«Countless MEDORGS» do not think ROGD is fringe, they (quite appropriately) think the hypothesis needs more testing and fleshing out before it could be taken into clinical use. Those are not the same thing.

This is a case of Alternative theoretical formulation, or at worst Questionable science, not Generally considered pseudoscience (cf. WP:NPOVFAQ), as the scientific community is clearly taking the hypothesis seriously. Hence, discrediting the book Irreparable damage by labelling ROGD fringe breaks with WP:NPOV. DJHellduck (talk) 17:33, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Look at basically any source on the page for ROGD. In fact the first cite on the page helpfully lists four sources for the lack of scientific backing: Restar (2019), Rider (2021), Kesslen (2022) and Broderick (2023). You can also have this open letter that calls for eliminating the use of ROGD and similar concepts for clinical and diagnostic application given the lack of empirical support for its existence and its likelihood of contributing to harm and mental health burden, which is signed by a boatload of MEDORGs including the APA and WPATH, and this separate statement by WPATH alone. And many other sources on the same page. This is very settled. Loki (talk) 22:36, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree, it’s pretty controversial. Does those sources mention the book we’re discussing here though? Because the ROGD endorsement is not the message of the book, nor is it essential to its premise… DJHellduck (talk) 13:37, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

At a certain point mate this just becomes IDHT Snokalok2 (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

What statement in the article are you actually objecting to?

The lead says that the book endorses ROGD and that ROGD is not scientifically supported, which is true and well-sourced, as I've just established. It then goes on to describe the general narrative of the book without criticizing it further. After that, it says the book received some positive reviews, which is true, and that it was criticized for repeating anti-trans medical misinformation, which is also true, and we cite the reviews that say that. And the rest of the article is just an elaboration of the lead.

So as far as I can tell there are only really four things you could want to change: the ROGD statement (very well sourced), the narrative of the book (citable to the book itself, not controversial), the positive reviews (easily citable, not controversial) or the negative reviews (easily citable). Do you see why I'm confused? It seems like you're insisting that something needs to be changed but everything that could be changed is easily verifiable and much of it isn't particularly controversial either. Loki (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I don’t really disagree with any of the content, so I’m a bit surprised by how this became such a huge discussion (though, that’s probably mostly my fault, for trying to argue with absolutely everyone). I went ahead and just made an edit based on the discussion, that I thought was not very controversial (I didn’t delete anything, and even put in an additional source on the poor scientific evidence underpinning ROGD), but that got immediately reverted, and an admin gave me a strike for disruptive editing, so I’m dropping the whole thing for my part.

Not gonna push the issue further, but if you’re open to it, it would have been interesting to get your thoughts on the concrete edit, since I’m starting to get the impression that we don’t really disagree on the fundamentals. DJHellduck (talk) 15:40, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

DJHellduck, if you want to make reasonable edits to the article, you'll need an RFC, and I will support you. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 05:10, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Why do we need to 'explain' what the author means by 'adolescent girls'?

Regarding this revert, why do we need to 'explain' what the author means by 'adolescent girls'? And why do we make this explanation using terminology which is 'jargony' and much less likely to be understood by most readers than the original. Shrier means the most obvious, historic meaning, female bodied young people, the group from whom the transgender youngsters have come. The very 'jargony' 'assigned female at birth' is simply a tortured way of saying the same thing anyway. At birth the bodies of these people were identified as either male or female, and on that basis a sex was 'assigned'. There have I believe in the past been discussions as to whether Shrier's sentence is misgendering these people. It doesn't AFAI can see misgender anyone. If there were a "sudden, severe spike in weeds among the potatoes", neither plant group is being wrongly described. The present addition IMO is not clarifying, it is simply editorialising, insisting that everyone at all times must use particular approved terminology, even when unnecessary, or actually impeding understanding.

Additionally, 'adolescent' anf 'teenager' are not synonyms. One describes a period of profound biological and psychological upheaval & change, the second simply describes anyone between 13 and 19 (the former being a little late for the average onset of adolescence but the latter being into full physical and legal adulthood in most societies).

To make matters worse we add two cites to our 'explanation'. The first is the book itself (thus implying that this explanation is made by Shrier, which it obviously isn't). The second cite is to Eckert who merely records that AFAB is the preferred term rather than 'biological girls', which Shrier sometimes uses in the book. Eckert says AFAB is more accurate "because no one gets to choose what sex they’re assigned at birth". Thus apart from mildly disapproving of Shrier's terminology, Eckert says nothing to clarify Shrier's terms (nor of course does she need to). Nor does she mention Shrier's use of either 'adolescents' nor 'teenagers'. Pincrete (talk) 15:25, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Without the clarification, most would assume she is talking about transgender girls, but the subjects are boys. HenrikHolen (talk) 19:24, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

As I said, there's a very real possibility that people seeing "adolescent girls" in this context would assume trans girls. Using the well understood and widely used term of assigned female at birth describes more accurately who the author is actually referring to. Also whether you think this is misgendering or not, refering to trans boys as girls is definitely misgendering. LunaHasArrived (talk) 20:10, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

there's a very real possibility that people seeing "adolescent girls" in this context would assume trans girls. So you think that a reader might interpret the sentence to mean "Shrier states that there was a "sudden, severe spike in transgender identification among trans girls" ?

I grant you that Shrier may well be referring to ALL the adolescent group, both those who identify as trans and those who do not, since she elsewhere refers to 'biological girls'. However there is no policy that I am aware of that forbids her from doing so, particularly as this sentence is in quotes, not WP:VOICE.

This discussion depends to a degree on whether one looks upon AFAB as jargon. I think it blatantly is, outside the realms of trans-advocacy and trans health provision, the term does not exist at all. Other terms are much more readily understood by the average reader than AFAB, which is not more accurate, it is simply preferred within that sphere. There are various (non-degogatory) ways to refer to people born with the bodies of one sex, who do not identify with that sex, all of them ultimately (including AFAB) depend on referencing biological sex.

You I'm afraid are confirming my suspicion that this is editorialising. It isn't clarifying by clearly conveying Shrier's meaning in the simplest fashion, it is seeking to imply to the reader what Shrier ought to have written and what the 'approved' language for her to do so would have been. Pincrete (talk) 09:01, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

No, the problem is that Shrier's work misidentifies boys as girls because she doesn't actually understand how gender works. So, in order for a reader who does understand how gender works to make sense of her scrawlings, we need to clarify. Simonm223 (talk) 12:28, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

the problem is that Shrier's work misidentifies boys as girls. Not even the Eckert review - which is very critical of this book - makes that claim. Eckert does record that Shrier uses the term 'biological girls' to refer to the whole peer group, both the trans-identifying and the non-trans-identifying. Eckert makes the claim that AFAB is more accurate than 'biological girls' "because no one gets to choose what sex they’re assigned at birth". It is difficult to take seriously a person who thinks that a new born human can choose ANYTHING, certainly anything about their own biology. So it difficult to understand what Eckert's sentence even means. Eckert may be expert in the provision of care for trans people, but this sentence is self-evident nonsense and seemingly obfuscatory. The AFAB terminology may be preferred in a care-providing environment, but that does not make it either more accurate or more readily understood by the non-expert WP reader.

But this discussion is about how to refer to biological sex, not about gender at all except in the sense that it recognises that some people identify as trans. It is impossible to even discuss this book or this topic without addressing the essential background which is of people with gender identities which do not match the biological sex into which they were born. The only real issue IMO is what is the clearest way of recording that background to the non-expert. Pincrete (talk) 15:05, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

When Shrier calls these people "adolescent girls", she's referring to a group of people that would mostly not agree with that description if asked. She's using the term "adolescent girls" mostly to refer to trans men and non-binary people, because she's opposed to the concept of trans identities or changing one's gender in general. This position is not mainstream in academic sources, who overwhelmingly refer to trans men as men, not as girls.

Since this non-mainstream position causes Shrier to refer to a group of people who are not girls as "girls", yes it is relevant to clarify. If anything, we probably should add a more direct clarification. Loki (talk) 20:31, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

because she's opposed to the concept of trans identities or changing one's gender in general Totally inaccurate. You haven't read her book. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 22:13, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

When Shrier calls these people "adolescent girls", she's referring to a group of people that would mostly not agree with that description if asked So you think that trans kids are in a majority among young female bodied people? I accept that when using the term "adolescent girls", Shrier may well be referring to the whole peer group, the trans identifying minority and the non-trans majority - though that is not the only rational reading, it may well be Shrier's intended one. It is equally possible to read the sentence as referring to the trans identifying kids among the non-trans 'girls'. Nobody I presume objects to young non-trans female bodied people being called 'girls'.

I haven't read the whole book, but AFAIK, she refers to 'trans identifying' rather than specific gendered terms, except 'biological girls'. Whether one approves of or disapproves of that specific term, it is impossible to discuss the topic at all without making the distinction between biology and identity. Even if I agreed with you about Shrier's views, nothing said addresses the issue of why we have to use obscure jargon, to describe a clear phenomenon. The more I read, the more it appears to be editorialising on rather than clarifying the views expressed in the book.

BTW she's using the term "adolescent girls" mostly to refer to trans men and non-binary people no early adolescent, of whaterver biology and of whatever identification is customarily called a 'man'. she's opposed to the concept of trans identities or changing one's gender in general I've read enough of the book to know that it is specifically concerned with one group of adolescents. Pincrete (talk) 09:39, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

When Eckert points out that the preferred term is "assigned female at birth" because no one gets to choose what sex they’re assigned at birth this is demonstrating precisely how Schrier fails to understand gender as Schrier is proposing in her book that sex-assignment at birth is an essential category and that socially constructed gender is subordinate to it. Eckert is describing the way in which Schrier fails to understand the topic even if they don't explicitly say "Schrier is a fringe figure who doesn't understand the topic." Simonm223 (talk) 11:15, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Actually looking at this further I am unsure of why we have these quotes from Shrier in the lead, the content isn't discussed in the body (except in the context of ROGD which is already in the lead) and whilst the quotes could be used in the body, giving a primary piece this much weight seems undue. LunaHasArrived (talk) 12:24, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

@Cuñado do you want to respond here and provide an objection to the removal of these quotes from the lead. LunaHasArrived (talk) 06:05, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

The article has a serious NPOV problem, and your edit made it worse. If you want to change the lead, I suggest you gain consensus first. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:22, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

How did it make npov worse. NPOV means the views found in reliable secondary sources, Shriers quoted from her own article definitely aren't secondary. Also separately as currently written a reader might think that these are quotes from the book rather than a separate article Shrier wrote LunaHasArrived (talk) 16:35, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

I'd support Luna's proposal -- we don't need, and probably shouldn't have, the quote of what Shrier says it's about. It reads kind of like a marketing bit, and given the quoted contents of the...spike, risks falsely implying that there is RS consensus that such a spike exists, which we have to be especially careful about on medical articles. Srey Sros^talk 01:48, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

I have previously tried to use neutral reliable sources to summarize the book's thesis and got reverted. Here are some examples of summaries of the book,

• "A critical look at the enormous rise in recent years in people identifying as trans, especially among girls. It covers a brewing scandal over the provision of irreversible treatments, whether surgical or pharmaceutical, to teenagers. Predictably controversial—yet there is not a drop of animosity in the book."

• "All this, coupled with the fact that adolescence is confusing at the best of times, might suggest that teenagers should, by and large, be discouraged from embarking on biomedical gender reassignment. That is the argument running through “Irreversible Damage,” a book by Abigail Shrier, a journalist. It is not one that holds much sway in America. As the number of transgender clinics has grown from one in 2007 to at least 50 today, so has the number of young patients in them. Once they were mostly boys; today they are girls. Ms Shrier argues that many are victims of an ideology which holds that the feeling of being in the wrong body must be affirmed at all costs. It has fuelled a craze, she writes, to which teenage girls are particularly susceptible.

"...Ms Shrier is damning of some of the professionals who have built careers working with trans-identifying children. She points out that this is the only medical field apart from cosmetic surgery in which both diagnosis and treatment are determined by the patient. She describes doctors and therapists (who would ordinarily consider it their job to challenge their patients’ assumptions) bowing to the judgment of vulnerable teenagers. They also, grievously, tell parents who do not accept that their daughters are boys that failing to affirm their identity may heighten the risk of suicide (research does not back this up)."

"Data on transgender medical interventions are poor—no one knows how many teenagers have transitioned—and one wonders at times if Ms Shrier may have become so steeped in the phenomenon that she exaggerates its reach. But she tells the stories of those she interviews with great care. She writes empathetically about the distress of gender dysphoria, “the relentless chafe of a body that feels all wrong,” and the experience of adults who have transitioned (a group that has long suffered discrimination). She quotes her interviewees at such length that it would be hard to claim she has misrepresented them. Yet despite this the book has been denounced as transphobic."

• "The book posits that gender dysphoria is a “diagnostic craze” fueled by adolescent confusion, social media and peer influence, and that teenagers are too young to undergo potentially irreversible gender transition surgery. Many transgender people and their advocates say the book is harmful to trans youth, and some have tried to suppress its distribution."

• "Shrier, who is the author of a 2020 book, “Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters,” which many trans people and their allies abhor.

• "When the journalist Abigail Shrier published her 2020 book “Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters” — casting the rise in dysphoria among teenage girls as a form of social contagion — Strangio tweeted that “stopping the circulation of this book and these ideas is 100% a hill I will die on.”

• "The book posits that a sudden surge in the number of teen girls identifying as trans boys is due not to gender dysphoria or transgenderism but rather to girls with other mental conditions who are mistakenly self-identifying as trans because there is social capital built into marginalized identities... However, many trans activists have decried the book as transphobic, hostile, and harmful to trans individuals more broadly. Adding to the conflagration, the book was also subject to efforts to limit its sale..."

"Reading Irreversible Damage, I found myself with several serious critiques. In the main, I had concerns that Shrier’s attention to science was, at times, superficial. This is, of course, hardly unique to this book, but on such an explosive topic, I would have liked to have seen more nuanced coverage of some of the scientific debates. Shrier does include data and opinions of some scholars in this field and covers some important (but disputed) work such as Lisa Littman’s controversial study of what she calls “rapid-onset gender dysphoria” (which itself was subject to censorship efforts which, whatever the merits of the study, were scientifically deplorable). However, I found myself dismayed by Shrier’s pat dismissals of the idea that gender identity is biological despite a wealth of evidence to suggest just that."

"There is evidence that, in addition to borderline personality disorder, gender dysphoria is also more common among autism spectrum adolescent girls. In this sense, the affirmative approach, wherein a youth’s professed gender identity is accepted as a move toward medical transition without any further diagnostic evaluation, has obvious risks."

• "Abigail Shrier’s “Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters,” a contentious tome that has sparked cries of transphobia since its release last summer...In her book, Shrier argues that gender dysphoria has become an “epidemic” in which teenagers are mistakenly jumping to the conclusion that they’re transgender. She contends that teens are too young to choose to medically transition, although she has said in interviews that she supports adults’ right to do so. Major medical associations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, support gender-affirming medical treatment for children and adolescents."

"Since the ABA’s apology, Spence said sales of “Irreversible Damage” have spiked far beyond the number of sales Regnery expected to make because of the white box. Some conservatives and free-speech advocates have used the controversy to encourage people to buy the book, which Spence defended as “temperately written.” He said criticism of the text as anti-trans was “empty rhetoric.”

"The booksellers association is not the only organization to find itself centered in the battle over “Irreversible Damage.” Mega-retailer Target promised in November to take the book off its shelves, but soon reversed itself. (The title was not listed on Target’s website Friday.) This spring, hundreds of Amazon employees asked the company to stop selling the book, and at least two recently resigned in protest of the company’s decision to keep stocking it, NBC News reported. “Irreversible Damage” was ranked as a bestseller on Amazon on Friday."

"Christopher Ferguson, a psychology professor at Stetson University who reviewed “Irreversible Damage” in January, said he would characterize Shrier’s book as intentionally provocative, but not transphobic. Ferguson, who studies moral panic and the formation of cultural narratives, said “Irreversible Damage” oversimplifies a nuanced issue."

Which ones do you prefer? Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:30, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

This is far far out of the scope of the current conversation which is about one small part of the current lead and the use of quotations from a separate price by Shrier to cover content not found in the body. If you want to cover something different, start a new conversation. Please keep on focus. LunaHasArrived (talk) 18:58, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

The first and second paragraphs of the lead try to summarize the thesis of the book. You removed a chunk of the second paragraph that was using Shrier's own words to summarize the book, and what was left was not a reflection of how reliable sources summarize the book. I provided examples of sources summarizing the book. If you want to revise the lead, it should reflect the preponderance of sources. MOS:LEAD: the lead section should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The lead should be a summary of a well-written and well-sourced article. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:51, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

That's very interesting because these points aren't currently made in the body (only ROGD is, which is already mentioned in the lead). Per MOS:Intro The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article. Also the second quote isn't discussing what she wrote in the book but rather what she discussed in a podcast. There is also still the issue of the quotes currently being presented such that a reader might think they are quotes from the book. I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with the first quote being in the article, but as they currently are we put a lot of weight in the lead on something not at all in the body.LunaHasArrived (talk) 22:04, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

I do think that we want to be cautious to avoid WP:PROFRINGE issues, since Shrier's views are so far out of the medical and academic mainstream. It would be best to summarize the book via high-quality academic sources that are suitable to assess the claims it makes and put them in proper context; devoting basically an entire paragraph to uncontested quotes from the author and summaries from sources with no relevant expertise isn't the appropriate way to cover fringe perspectives. --Aquillion (talk) 05:20, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

What is the book's starting point? Essentially a very substantial, unexplained increase in early adolescent natal/biological females identifying as trans. Neither the existence of that phenomenon, nor the stats describing it are FRINGE, much disputed AFAIK, nor require much expertise to understand. The explanation Shrier proffers, (ROGD) is far out of the medical and academic mainstream and not supported by experts in the field, nor anything much other than anecdotal evidence, but the existence of the phenomenon itself, the huge increase in trans identification among this cohort is easily understood without resorting to MOS:JARGON, the use of which, IMO obfuscates the subject of the book and is blatatant editorialising. It ought to be possible for the reader to understand the topic without having to learn a whole new vocabulary. Pincrete (talk) 16:29, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

If a book's thesis was "life is very complex, therefore it was intelligently designed", we would rightly categorize that book as pushing the intelligent design fringe theory and our article about that book would mainly be about its endorsement of the fringe theory. We would not call it a book about how life is very complex. Loki (talk) 16:35, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Intelligent design is rejected because there is a clear, science based, widely accepted alternative explanation for the complexity of life forms (evolution by natural selection). There is no such accepted (or even proffered?) explanation for exponential increases (across the Western world?) in trans identification. That of course doesn't make Shrier's position on ROGD any more accepted or 'evidenced', but it does impact the topic the book is attempting to address. The question "how come life is so very complex? Is it perhaps the result of an intelligent hand" would be a valid one if evolutionists had not already provided a better answer. Shrier's answer is widely rejected, and we should record that, but the question itself remains valid and can be asked in a neutral fashion without endorsing her proferred answer. Pincrete (talk) 17:41, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

It can be by someone, but it's not in this book. It's our job to cover what the book is actually about (the author endorsing the fringe theory of ROGD at length) and not what we might want it to be about. Loki (talk) 20:13, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

We are in danger of getting lost in hypotheticals here, but for the record, whatever the topic, I tend to support stating the 'thesis' before recording the 'verdict' (ie if this were about some branch of creationism, I would argue that we should state what claims this branch made before recording that they were generally thought unscientific for reasons x & y). Thus I don't doubt that ROGD isn't supported by experts or much non-anecdotal evidence (it was initially I believe little more than a conjecture by its ini[['hytial 'advocate[ [).

However, ROGD isn't the substantive reason for me starting this section, which was asking why in discussing the starting point of this book (the fairly sudden and substantial spike in trans identification, by adolescents from a group who traditionally rarely were trans - a spike which I believe is mirrored across the Western world), why do we choose to use terminology which is needlessly jargony. We necessarily refer to ROGD and define its thesis, we don't need to refer to AFAB, nor is it helpful to do so. It is a term which is not familiar to the lay reader, and adds nothing to their understanding, it's a convoluted way of recording 'born in a female body'. Pincrete (talk) 18:34, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

I mean, we already do say Shrier says that the book is about "the sudden, severe spike in transgender identification among adolescent girls". I don't know what else you would want.

While I agree the term AFAB is jargon-y, and I'd rather find a way to avoid the jargon, it's certainly not needlessly jargon-y. The jargon is necessary because Shrier consistently refers to the subjects of her book as "girls" while making it clear that many of the people she's talking about identify as trans or non-binary, meaning that this group is in fact a combination of trans men, non-binary people, and some actual girls. There's no good term to refer to all these groups of people that is accurate but not jargon-y. Loki (talk) 05:10, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Shrier consistently refers to the subjects of her book as "girls" I believe that is incorrect. Until recently this article made that claim, but the cite used said that the term she consistently uses is "biological girls". The meaning is clear and accurate about the biological sex of these adolescents (who nonetheless identify as male). You can argue that the distiction between 'girls' and 'biological girls' is immaterial, but if so, the whole subject becomes impossible to discuss. By the same logic, we would not be able to refer to 'trans girls' or 'trans boys' because the adjective could be construed as calling the noun into question.

I agree that ""the sudden, severe spike in transgender identification among adolescent girls"" is very clear. I also don't think it misgenders anyone or any group. Where I disagree is in the following sentence (the AFAB one), which to my eyes reads as editorialising and is obfuscatory jargon. The fundamental situation is very simple, and is central to any discussion about what being trans means, thus if clarification is needed, (I don't think it is). it should clarify the topic in a way that the lay reader can understand. Pincrete (talk) 09:29, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Is someone who has been on testosterone for years, and consequently has male-typical musculature, a beard, and a deep voice, a "biological girl" in an unambiguous way? What about someone who's had a phalloplasty? Her terminology is not the standard for good reason, and can't really be split from the WP:FRINGE theory she's pushing. Loki (talk) 00:58, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

If they are adolescents who have recently declared their trans identification, (the subjects of the book), they are unlikely to be referred to as 'men' (any more than their male bodied contemporaries of that age would be). They cannot possibly have been taking hormones for years, (unless it started in infancy) and would not yet have male secondary sexual characteristics or have had trans-related surgical intervention.

I think we can all agree that anyone who has been taking hormones for many years, who has undergone trans-related genital or other 'surgery' and who has developed secondary characteristics of the gender to which they transitioned, would probably be referred to as a 'man' or a 'woman' (with or without the adjective 'trans', as necessary). But such subjects are, almost certainly, adults, are not the subject of the book, and are not referred to by anyone ever, anywhere, as 'adolescent girls'. This is an obvious STRAWMAN. Pincrete (talk) 07:05, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

There's nothing in the book about "recently declared", for one. For two, the prologue of the book is about a college student (therefore, an adult) who has been identifying as trans for multiple years and been on hormones for at least a year. The next example is also about an adult who has had top surgery. The next example cuts their parents off over a dispute loosely related to paying rent.

These people may have started out as adolescents (though, as in the college student example, even that's not certain) but most of them are not at the time Shrier writes about them. Most of the examples in the book are perfectly ordinary trans adults whose parents don't accept them, mainly because you need to be an adult to cut your parents off, and parents whose children have cut contact appear to be Shrier's main source for anecdotes. Loki (talk) 00:35, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

The book mostly uses the phrase "natal females", and has a discussion on the difficulty in describing the subjects. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:23, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

What? No it doesn't, a simple Google Books search shows 10 hits for "adolescent girls" versus 6 for "natal females". Loki (talk) 04:39, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't know about how examples are used, nor how old they were at the time of the book having been written, but the book is fairly explicitly solely about adolescents identifying as/being recognised and treated as trans.

My understanding was that the phenomenon was an increase in early adolescent identification. If I'm wrong about that, or it isn't explicit in the book, I apologise for the error, but early, middle, or late, or all three, the topic of the book is explicitly adolescents, who by any definition, are pre-adult legally and developmentally. Pincrete (talk) 05:57, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

The examples directly contradict this. She says she's not talking about trans adults and then talks about three adults in a row.

This sort of thing is, incidentally, part of why I don't want to use her terminology. Loki (talk) 07:45, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

The examples directly contradict this. She says she's not talking about trans adults and then talks about three adults in a row I have only read extracts, and so am largely reliant on reviews and articles as to exact content, but none of these mention these discrpancies.

I've reread some of those reviews today, they consistenly use words suggesting youth (child, girl, boy, teenager,in high school, kids, as well as adolescent and references to puberty), so AFAI can see, reviewers think that 'adolescents' are the primary topic of the book. Pincrete (talk) 15:59, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

I have to say you should not be insisting what the book is about without at least reading the Google Books preview. Loki (talk) 04:40, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

What would your summary of these sources actually be? Specifically, how would it be different from the summary currently in the article? Loki (talk) 20:38, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

I think the NYT has two examples that are much better summaries than what the page currently has: The book posits that gender dysphoria is a “diagnostic craze” fueled by adolescent confusion, social media and peer influence, and that teenagers are too young to undergo potentially irreversible gender transition surgery. Many transgender people and their advocates say the book is harmful to trans youth, and some have tried to suppress its distribution.

casting the rise in dysphoria among teenage girls as a form of social contagion - I don't have a strong opinion about caveating the "teenage girls". Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:51, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

I think that summary is pretty good, honestly, but I'm still not quite sure why you think it's better. My big issue with it compared to what we have now is that our summary of a book that's mostly about ROGD really should mention ROGD by name. Loki (talk) 18:57, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

I think it's more accurate to say both Littman's ROGD and Shrier's book are about the same phenomenon, and since Shrier came later she mentions and endorses Littman. The current article reeks of editors trying to trash the book, and only a minority of sources discuss it that way (which, of course, are the ones used). The mention of ROGD as not "backed by credible scientific evidence" is a skewed presentation of what the literature calls an unconfirmed hypothesis in need of more research. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 23:57, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Christopher Ferguson is hardly a neutral reviewer. He's published some (weakly) anti-trans material of his own. Specifically he doesn't believe gender affirming care has been demonstrated to be effective. Using him to claim Schrier's book isn't transphobic is rather like asking the fox whether it's safe to let weasels into the henhouse. Simonm223 (talk) 17:53, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

In fact he seems to be something of a clearing house for polite entries of a rather specific constellation of bias into the American culture war. Simonm223 (talk) 17:55, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

---

(replying to top-level comment, not outdented one)

Pincrete, it seems like you have a few different complaints about the current wording, let me try to disentangle them, and correct me if I'm wrong.

1. You state that the clarification we make, ..among adolescent girls" in the 2010s, referring to teenagers assigned female at birth is unnecessary and represents improper editorializing.
2. You think that there is a non-negligible difference in this context between adolescent and teenager, and the clarification uses the wrong one.
3. You think the clarification should not be cited to Eckert.

Regarding #1 (clarifying is unnecessary and editorializes), you make two arguments in support of these characterizations:

(a) You seem to believe that among adolescent girls is a spatial rather than membership relation (your "potato" analogy) -- specifically, that Shrier is saying in her quote that the trans people she writes about are among adolescent girls (geographically? socially?), but that they are not adolescent girls.

(b) You say that clarifying that the subjects of the book are trans boys and men (rather than trans girls and women) would imply to readers that everyone at all times must use particular approved terminology, even when unnecessary, or actually impeding understanding

Point (a) is easily refuted by simply reading a few sentences further in the interview where Shrier makes the quoted statement. She writes:

I wrote specifically about the sudden, severe spike in transgender identification among adolescent girls. [...] Thousands of teen girls across the Western world are not only self-diagnosing with a real dysphoric condition they likely do not have; in many cases, they are obtaining hormones and surgeries following the most cursory diagnostic processes.

On point (b), I think this is a leap -- gender assignment terminology is standard in the medical literature (including in patient-facing resources, so hardly jargon). In my view, this is the simplest terminology that preserves the required level of detail for a MedRS topic, and I've yet to see any proposal which makes it clear that Shrier's subjects are indeed (the parents of) transgender boys and men while adhering to GenderID.

Regarding #2 (teenagers vs adolescents), I have no preference, although I would note that Shrier herself (see the red quote above) seems to use the terms interchangeably to describe her own work. I would be fine if we changed it to ... referring to *adolescents* assigned female at birth, although in that case I would propose, to avoid the ugly duplicate word:

−

Shrier says that the book is about "the sudden, severe spike in transgender identification among adolescent girls" in the 2010s, referring to teenagers assigned female at birth.

+

Shrier says that the book is about "the sudden, severe spike in transgender identification" in the 2010s among adolescents assigned female at birth.

Regarding #3 (citation to Eckert), I'm confused by your argument. You write (emphasis mine):

The second cite is to Eckert who merely records that AFAB is the preferred term rather than 'biological girls', which Shrier sometimes uses in the book. Eckert says AFAB is more accurate "because no one gets to choose what sex they’re assigned at birth". Thus apart from mildly disapproving of Shrier's terminology, Eckert says nothing to clarify Shrier's terms (nor of course does she need to).
— User:Pincrete

This doesn't make sense to me. Eckert's wording is (emphasis mine):

Throughout her book, Shrier refers to her subjects as “biological girls,” a term that conflates sex with gender and mischaracterizes Shrier’s subjects [...] More accurately, Shrier’s subjects are “AFAB”, or “assigned female at birth“, because no one gets to choose what sex they’re assigned at birth. When discussing transgender and gender non-conforming individuals, this terminology is generally preferred over “biological male/female”, “male/female bodied”, “natal male/female”, and “born male/female”, which are considered defamatory and inaccurate.

This source is not just stating that the term assigned female at birth is preferred, it states that the terminology Shrier uses is inaccurate. The fact that we have an RS stating that her description is unreliable/inaccurate is highly relevant and supports the editor concerns expressed here (and which I share) about reader understanding.

Srey Sros^talk 01:42, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

I shall try not to reply "point by point', since to do so would even further obfuscate a very simple scenario, but, a few corrections and clarifications. To many people, 'gender' is a slightly more formal term for 'biological sex' (ie a person's genitals etc and consequent possible function in reproduction) or refers to a property of some languages. To some, notably some feminists, the term refers to roles and expectations socially imposed onto people according to their biological sex. In the'trans world' there is a third meaning relating to how an individual identifies, sometimes as something distinct from their biological sex. I try to attach an adjective to clarify how I am using any of these terms and others, but it doesn't help that in each 'world' their own particular meaning is treated as though it is the universally understood and sole legitimate meaning. The end result is one in which each 'world' is often talking to itself and simply reinforcing the beliefs and assumptions implicit in that world.

To specifics, 'adolescent' is significantly more accurate than 'teenager' and more apt to the context, since adolescence is known to be a biologically, phsychologically, hormonally and socially turbulent, but formative, human phase. Also in the modern world, among females particularly, adolescence occurs slightly earlier than 'teenage-hood'.

I specifically say that Shrier when using the term 'adolescent girls' may well be referring to the whole cohort, which the trans youngsters 'belonged to' up to the point that they declared an identification. However one refers to these young people, a relevant defining feature of both the trans and non-trans ones is their biological sex. Fixed at conception, probably first observed by ultrasound during pregnancy and possibly first officially identified and recorded at birth. Apart from a very small number of births where sex is ambiguous or inter-sex, this is the process. In so far as anything is 'assigned' at birth, family, school, society all to a greater or lesser extent 'assign' certain gendered expectations regarding roles, attire, appearance, priorities etc from that point on.

My potato analogy was merely to record the alternative legitimate reading, I acknowledge that Shrier may well be referring to the whole cohort, (including the recently declared trans ones) as 'adolescent girls', but I think that this is legitimate use of a term which the general reader will readily understand. There are other, equally easily understood terms which communicate to the lay reader, far more effectively than AFAB (all of which necessarily reference biological characteristics). We are required to never misgender any individual, by extension, we should avoid knowingly misgendering a group, but when it becomes necessary to distinguish biological sex and declared identity to a lay reader, it behoves us I believe to use language that best serves the reader.

The reason the 'expert' gives for thinking AFAB is clearer is so self-evidently silly as to make one question their basic medical understanding. Because no one gets to choose what sex they’re assigned at birth, errr apart from (partially) choosing how loud and how often to cry, no new-born gets to choose ANYTHING, certainly not their genital or chromoosomal or other biological properties. Also, in so far as 'sex' refers to 'role in reproduction', no one ever gets to choose or change that role. This piece is itself IMO conflating 'sex' and 'gender', biological properties and personal identification. I understand why AFAB may be favoured and apt within trans health provision, but WP serves the reader, not health providers, nor even 'patients'.

Your proposed text is a great improvement IMO, I would prefer not to use 'AFAB' at all, but you at least introduce the term in a less intrusive, editorialising fashion. Pincrete (talk) 10:01, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Then it seems there's really just two points of disagrement. You write: the reason the 'expert' gives for thinking AFAB is clearer is so self-evidently silly as to make one question their basic medical understanding. Whether or not a reliable source convinces you personally is not a WP-relevant factor, and making editorial judgements based on such a factor would constitute impermissible original research. We seem to agree that Shrier is (or may well be) referring to her subjects (the trans boys and men) as adolescent girls. However, you write that terming them as such is a legitimate use of a term. I, the manual of style, and the Eckert source, disagree. We'd need strong local consensus to override such a guideline. Finally, you write that there are other, equally easily understood terms which communicate to the lay reader, far more effectively than AFAB. If you have proposals for some such terms that do not misgender the targets of Shrier's writing, I'd love to hear them. Srey Sros^talk 21:53, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Virtually very human being ever born was formally identified as/categorised as/assigned one of two sexes at birth, (though in the modern medical world it was knowable long before that). Eckert herself gives an accurate description of the process, a fairly cursory examination of the urino-genital area, which in most cases is sufficient to indicate what the chromosomal and other internal medical properties are and is fairly predictive of what expected future reproductive organ development and capabilities will be.

The idea that a trans health specialist is any better qualified than any general practitioner, midwife or obstetrician to know how to accurately describe that process is itself silly beyond words. So my response to the WP:OR claims, is that the expertise needs to be necessary and relevant and Eckert's isn't particularly relevant to how 'male' or 'female' come to be entered onto everyone's birth records. She may be terrific in other respects.

I believe that most readers would understand "among adolescent girls" to mean the cohort from whom the trans identifying ones have come and have previously been identified as. I don't believe it misgenders anyone since their having identified as trans is explicit. But if needs be, there are other terms which are much more readily understandable than AFAB (female-bodied, biological female, natal female etc), all of which describe the same scenario, but which are much less jargony (btw how can one be 'an adolescent' and a 'man' - or 'woman' or any kind of adult? This is akin to 'middle-aged infant'). Pincrete (talk) 05:34, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Sources use "girls", "teenage girls", "daughters", "teenage girls", "teen girls identifying as trans boys", "girls", and "adolescent girls". Sources linked above, same section. These include The Economist, NYT, Psychology Today. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:42, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Is there a reason why in both this and the previous above source analysis you don't include both the Eckert and Turban sources, these sources are among our absolute best sources (being written by Subject matter Experts.) For completeness the Turban peice refers to transgender youth generally (benefit: no possible misgendering and includes non-binary, con: removes specifity about that it is targeted to those assigned female at birth.) and the Eckert peice (which has been shown above)

Also to Pincrete and Cuñado, why are you both suggesting ideas that according to Eckert (our best source as a subject matter expert published by a place with a relevant expertise in fringe science) either mischaracterizes the subjects of the book or are considered defamatory and inaccurate. LunaHasArrived (talk) 18:29, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

For the same reason I didn't include sources like these:

• “In Irreversible Damage, Abigail Shrier provides a thought-provoking examination of a new clinical phenomenon mainly affecting adolescent females—what some have termed rapid-onset gender dysphoria—that has, at lightning speed, swept across North America and parts of Western Europe and Scandinavia. In so doing, Shrier does not shy away from the politics that pervade the field of gender dysphoria. It is a book that will be of great interest to parents, the general public, and mental health clinicians.” — Kenneth J. Zucker, Ph.D., adolescent and child psychologist and chair of the DSM-5 Work Group on Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders
• “Thoroughly researched and beautifully written.” —Ray Blanchard, Ph.D., head of Clinical Sexology Services at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health from 1995–2010
• "Irreversible Damage . . . has caused a storm. Abigail Shrier, a Wall Street Journal writer, does something simple yet devastating: she rigorously lays out the facts." —Janice Turner, The Times of London
• “For no other topic have science and conventional wisdom changed—been thrown away—more rapidly than for gender dysphoria. For a small but rapidly growing number of adolescent girls and their families, consequences have been tragic. This urgently needed book is fascinating, wrenching, and wise. Unlike so many of the currently woke, Abigail Shrier sees clearly what is in front of our faces and is brave enough to name it. Irreversible Damage will be a rallying point to reversing the damage being done.” —J. Michael Bailey, author and professor of psychology at Northwestern University
• “Courage is a rare trait. Abigail Shrier has it in abundance. She defies the politically correct tide to write a moving and critically needed book about a terrible new plague that endangers our children—‘rapid-onset gender dysphoria.’ This book explains what it is, how it has spread, and what we can do about it. And Irreversible Damage is as readable as it is important.” —Dennis Prager
• “Abigail Shrier has written a deeply compassionate and utterly sobering account of an unprecedented and reckless social experiment whose test subjects are the bodies and psyches of the most emotionally vulnerable among us.” —John Podhoretz, editor of Commentary magazine and columnist for the New York Post

A neutral point of view means Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This book is not about a fringe theory, and finding one or two opinion pieces that are extremely biased and declaring one of them our best source as a subject matter expert is a flagrant violation of policy. At the very least, prominent criticism or praise of the book should be written about, not declared in Wikivoice. There is a category of articles that are written neutrally, and those are the ones I chose to cite. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:48, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

The book is about a fringe theory; we have documented that in detail on its page. What you're offering seems to just be that all these people are endorsing a fringe theory.

NPOV means we balance between reliable sources, not every opinion ever. Dennis Prager's personal opinion is not a reliable source. Loki (talk) 19:10, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Nor, frankly, should Ray Blanchard be used to defend a fringe theory a he is one of the principal pseudoscientific voices in the discussion of the treatment of trans people. Comparing a respected academic to Blanchard is patently ridiculous. I mean aside from his resignation, in disgrace, from HBIGDA he has also associated himself with the Human Biodiversity Institute which advocates for eugenics and "scientific" racism. He is a thoroughly discredited figure. Simonm223 (talk) 12:36, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

I was going to mention that Blanchard and Bailey were mostly associated with trans medicine in the context of being supporters of a discredited and arguably unscientific theory that is often used by transphobes to discredit trans people, but I didn't really want to get into an argument over the scientific status of Blanchard's typology when there was an easier and equally strong objection available. Loki (talk) 18:35, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Many publications do indeed misgender the trans people they write about. Per WP guidelines we may not. Srey Sros^talk 00:03, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Per WP guidelines we may not, that's very straightforward when dealing with named individuals. We use their preferred terms (whatever their reason for preferring them) and in most instances, their transition and their biology are private matters.

When discussing groups however, or the phenomenon, or process or ethics of particular aspects of transition. It isn't possible to be so straightforward. We are necessarily discussing matters of biology which, for trans or non-trans people, would ordinarily be private and necessarily using terms which may be biologically, or socially gendered in ways that the individuals might not approve of. Pincrete (talk) 04:26, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Please stop referring to AJ Eckert as "she" and "her". They have stated their pronoun preference here, and go by either "they" or "he". The cited source itself consistently refers to Eckert as "they" (e.g. Dr. Eckert plans a second part to this discussion, which they are currently working on.), and, while I am assuming good faith from your end, I am curious where you got the impression that they went by "she" instead. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 10:55, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether that is directed at me, but I have inadvertently made that error. I don't know why I referred to Eckert as 'she', whether subconsciously picking up on someone else's usage or simply subjective impression, or some other reason, there was no malice in it. Thankyou for pointing this out and I won't repeat the error. Pincrete (talk) 05:32, 3 September 2026 (UTC)