Talk:World Professional Association for Transgender Health/Archive 1

Errors to be fixed with the page

1 its gender not sexuality they are different as sexuality is a whole different thing to someone's make up or identity. >> move this to the transgender porthole not sexuality —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saracoola (talk • contribs) 23:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

"Controversy" section breaks WP:NPOV

The "controversy" section seems biased towards anti-trans viewpoints. Both sources seem to have biases towards anti-trans views, and one of the citations is an anti-trans group (which was previously deceptively described as a feminist group). I'd propose removing it. TransfemLinuxUser (talk) 03:56, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

The text from the section should be incorporated into the main body of the article as per WP:CRITS. Version 8 of the Standards of Care has just been published and devotes all of Chapter Eight to eunuchs, which is certainly notable. JezGrove (talk) 08:53, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

IMO those details belong on Standards of Care for the Health of Transgender and Gender Diverse People. We could then summarize criticism of the SoC on this article. Madeline (part of me) 20:24, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Re Maddy from Celeste, I absolutely agree. The SoC is a publication from WPATH -- and the criticism is mostly directed towards the WPATH SoC in of itself. Even then, I'm afraid that these viewpoints would be overly biased within the context of the article (very much fabricated, right-wing ideological fear), and would not fit in unless it's integrated within a more generalized Reception section. TransfemLinuxUser (talk) 03:11, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Another problem is that neither of the news articles actually identify the paper in question as the SOC8. While we can confirm that it is by comparing quotes against the pubished document, relying on that in article space would be OR. Unless we get some sort of follow-up confirming that it was the SOC8 and discussing the matter further, I'm on the side of just deleting it altogether as undue. Madeline (part of me) 10:24, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Just because the claims are biased does not mean we shouldn't feature them. All of the claims are from reliable sources and I'm concerned that your reasoning violates WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. There is nothing undue about mentioned a controversy documented in RS. X-Editor (talk) 19:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

FWIW I agree with the way you incorporated it into Standards of Care for the Health of Transgender and Gender Diverse People. Madeline (part of me) 19:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@Maddy from Celeste: Thanks. It makes much more sense to be there instead. X-Editor (talk) 20:50, 27 September 2022 (UTC)