Talk:Mermaids (charity)

Controversial charity?

Whether or not, we believe it should be controversial it seems uncontroversial to state, on the basis of a reliable source, that it is considered controversial. Even if some people do not consider it controversial. If enough people do consider it controversial, then it is a controversial charity. The revert is here [[1]]. Other views are sought. Springnuts (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

As stated in the edit summary, in my view The Telegraph is not a suitable source to state in wikivoice that an organisation providing services to trans people is "controversial". If this is itself controversial, perhaps it is time to take the question to WP:RSN? Newimpartial (talk) 18:17, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with both of you. Wikipedia should not describe any organisation as ‘controversial’ because this tells readers nothing about the organisation. In order to inform our readers, there should, instead, be details in the article about any controversy involving the organisation. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:47, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd be quite so absolute as to say that no article should ever say "controversial" but I do agree that, even when we have sufficient sources for it, it is far less helpful to say "controversial" than it is to explain what the issues are. It is something to avoid in the vast majority of cases. In this case we don't even have sufficient sources to raise the question. DanielRigal (talk) 23:57, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Sweet6970 makes some sense here; "controversial" does seem to be kind of a "weasel word", even if it isn't listed in MOS:WEASEL. It's a vague descriptor that can be seen as applying to anything that anybody disagrees with, which is pretty much everything. It's better to state what specific objections people have and how widespread they are. *Dan T.* (talk) 13:33, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Note: After I made the comment above, Sideswipe9th directed us to MOS:LABEL which specifically mentions ‘controversial’ as a word to avoid: Rather than describing an individual using the subjective and vague term controversial, instead give readers information about relevant controversies. Make sure, as well, that reliable sources establish the existence of a controversy and that the term is not used to grant a fringe viewpoint undue weight. Although only ‘an individual’ is mentioned, this surely applies in the same way to organisations. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:57, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

• I feel like we need to have an RFC sometime soon on whether the Telegraph is considered WP:BIASED when it comes to trans topics specifically, what level of in-text attribution is needed when citing it in order to make that bias clear, and when it becomes WP:UNDUE to focus excessively on its opinions. --Aquillion (talk) 16:22, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

  I strongly disagree. Just because the Telegraph disagrees with your particular view of something doesn't mean that it should be gotten rid of for that issue. DenverCoder9 (talk) 08:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Leaving aside the discussion on overuse of The Telegraph for the moment, MOS:LABEL gives some advice for this, which is to avoid using such a vague term. WP:NPOV as a whole also tells us to avoid this based on a single source, and only to do so if it represents the mainstream viewpoint on the charity. I've done a quick search for other sources, and even the Telegraph don't label the charity as controversial consistently. The most common descriptors seem to be similar to how we currently the organisation; a charity and advocacy organisation that supports gender variant and transgender youth. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:57, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

How about [[2]]. “ The transgender youth support charity has chosen not to comment on the move, which follows controversy about the distribution of chest binders”. Would editors be happy to say that there is controversy over some of the charity’s actions? Springnuts (talk) 22:51, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

That describes a controversial event, which we already cover in the article. It does not support labelling the charity as controversial, and instead supports the current descriptor by describing Mermaids as a transgender youth support charity.

In order to comply with the relevant policies and guidelines, you would need to demonstrate that the charity is consistently described as controversial or a close synonym, by the majority of independent reliable sources who have articles on the charity. This does not need to be limited to media sources, as academic that have been subject to peer review and published in reputable journals are generally weighted higher. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:58, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with those above that "controversial" is generally a very poor word to use. However, if the fact we are attempting to convey is that the charity is "controversial", then we should be specific: among whom, and why. Here are some hypothetical examples of types of "controversial" that a transgender and healthcare-related charity could be: Its advice is controversial among medical experts; Its effectiveness has proved controversial among former users of the service; Its use of funds to pay for further fundraising has proved controversial among donors; Its consultations with Members of Parliament has proved controversial among the electorate. But something of quite a different calibre to saying "the charity is controversial" is: Its recognition of the existence of transgender youth has been widely criticised by right-wing news media. Of course, whatever we say needs a source that says precisely that thing. And unfortunately, news media are rarely interested in giving information about a controversy and much more interested in manufacturing one. — Bilorv (talk) 17:26, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Also not at all a fan of such a word in the first sentence in pretty much any article, per LABEL as mentioned above. It just serves to denigrate without imparting real information. It is better to explain controversies in the main text and summarize in the overall lead if warranted. Whether or not a separate section is best varies by article; this seems fine without it. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:06, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be appropriate to include a “Controversy” or a “Controversy and criticism” section in the article, as we do for eg Kidscape or the RSPCA. Springnuts (talk) 20:59, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

No, per WP:CRITS. Madeline (part of me) 21:02, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:CRITS is neither a policy nor a guideline - it's the opinion of those who wrote it. It is by no means universally held - see eg English Heritage (criticism), Miriam Cates (Controversies, Stonewall (Controversies), LGB Alliance (Media coverage and criticism), Age UK (criticism), Oxfam (criticism), Kidscape (controversy), RSPCA (Controversy and criticism), Humanists UK (criticism) ... Springnuts (talk) 22:17, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

That poor-quality articles exist is neither here nor there. — Bilorv (talk) 18:34, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

• WP:CSECTION is one of those essays that reflects widespread norms. If you want to include a criticism section regardless you're absolutely going to have to answer the arguments in it, because those arguments enjoy overwhelming consensus; editors aren't going to repeat them in detail every single time. --Aquillion (talk) 11:47, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

  This is exactly the opposite of what you say when you argue for including "contentious" in the lede of Irreversible Damage DenverCoder9 (talk) 08:35, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

  There's a rather significant difference between calling a charity contentious or controversial, and describing a pseudoscientific theory as contentious or controversial. However I believe that you may have misread Aquillion's comment on that article, as they were advocating against calling ROGD contentious in favour of calling it pseudoscientific. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:26, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

LGB Alliance charitable status case

I saw on Twitter a couple of days ago that the judgement for charitable status appeal will be handed down tomorrow at around 10am UK time. Obviously we can't add the tweet to the article, but I just wanted to give a heads up for editors to keep an eye out for it and for a burst of attention to be drawn here tomorrow morning. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:54, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Discussion notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) regarding the use of suicide crisis telephone numbers (which this article doesn't include). The thread is Suicide hotlines. Thank you. TheSpacebook (talk) 02:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Work with the GIDS service

I feel the paragraph regarding Mermaids' work with GIDS is poorly written, and should be altered. The quote regarding the prevalence of suicide among trans youth gives the impression that suicide is not a major issue among trans youth. While suicide is rare amongst virtually any demographic, suicide among trans youth is substantially higher than it is for the general population, and the paragraph should not imply otherwise. Moreover, the implication that Mermaids is scaring parents by exaggerating the prevalence of suicide is contested.

The paragraph centres the work of Susie Green when it would be more appropriate for this page to discuss the work of Mermaids as whole. It also describes the personal experiences of Susie Green which would be better placed within her page, rather than that of Mermaids

I do not believe that the use of "lobbying" is appropriate here, because the word connotes political activism for the purpose of financial or political advancement, which is not the case here. Generally when discussing the work of charities one would use words like "advocacy"

Finally, the only source provided is a link to an opinion piece by Janice Turner in The Times. Given the vocally conservative stance on LGBT issues from both The Times and Turner, I think it would be best to find a less biased source or to add another. HenrikHolen (talk) 16:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

For an additional source regarding the lobbying, I suggest Hannah Barnes Time To Think [3], for instance these comments on pp363-364. It seems that ideology and feelings have been allowed to trump traditional medical evidence in the work of GIDS. And where ideology impacted GIDS so strongly was in the service’s inability to keep an appropriate distance from charities and support groups liked Gendered Intelligence and Mermaids. That the bosses of both organisations saw themselves as entitled to write to GIDS director Polly Carmichael directly and demand clinicians be reprimanded, or switched, or that the service go further and faster with physical interventions, is telling. …..It appeared from emails that Carmichael had responded sympathetically when [Susie] Green asked for changes to GIDS’s practices. … It was pressure, in part, from lobby groups that took the service initially down a path of providing physical interventions to younger children without a strong evidence base. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I am not disputing that Mermaids sought to influence the treatment of gender dysphoria. There are reports published on their websites that express their recommendations for changes to the NHS pathway for gender dysphoria, so this seems beyond dispute. I am merely questioning whether "lobbying" is the most neutral way of describing it.

As for your suggested source, it seems to suffer from many of the same issues as the original source. I think it would be best to simply refer to documents published by Mermaids, which detail their involvement in advising the NHS. Ultimately the source needs only to document that they were involved with influencing the treatment pathway; there is no need for it to discuss the merit or consequences of their advice. HenrikHolen (talk) 21:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I would describe what Hannah Barnes details as ‘illegitimate interference and bullying’. ‘Lobbying’ is a very mild term for it. So I support the existing wording on this. I have added the Barnes book as an additional reference for the lobbying statement. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:26, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

You've added multiple biased, opinion sources to this paragraph and input multiple very strongly-worded phrases that have negative connotations. "lobbying" is a political act done towards politicians, see lobbying. It does not belong here. Sock-the-guy (talk) 16:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I plan to rewrite this entire paragraph seeing as both sources for that sentence are not reliable. We should be citing legitimate news sources, not random books and opinion pieces. Sock-the-guy (talk) 16:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Time to think is not a ‘random book’. [4].It is a book dedicated to what happened at GIDS. It is extremely factual, written in a neutral tone, and thoroughly sourced. It is rather like a 300+ page Wikipedia article. It got good reviews, and it was short-listed for two awards. It is the most comprehensive and reliable source for what happened at GIDS. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Hate to keep adding on to this chain but here's an article in which Mermaid's disputes this entire paragraph: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/nov/17/mermaids-why-has-the-trans-charity-been-in-the-news Sock-the-guy (talk) 16:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

The (high quality secondary source) book "Time To Think" says:

But demands for change grew more vociferous from the mid 2000s. Along with Mermaids, the Gender Identity Research and Education Society - GIRES - lobbied hard for GIDS to lower the age at which they'd consider treating children with puberty blockers.

It further says, later:

Some at board level believed by the middle of 2019 that GIDS should not be engaging with Mermaids at all - including attending any of their events. Mermaids was a lobbying group, they believed, and it was vital for GIDS to have boundaries and retain its patient focus.

Not only did Mermaids lobby, but senior figures considered the level of lobbying to be a serious issue. The present language is fine. Void if removed (talk) 12:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

What, exactly, are the qualifications of the author of that purported "high quality" source? Simonm223 (talk) 15:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

A 15 year career in investigative journalism? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

So none. Gotcha. Simonm223 (talk) 17:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

What qualifications were you hoping for? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 21:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Qualifications that would suggest any functional academic knowledge of social work, medicine or social science. You know: academic credentials. Simonm223 (talk) 11:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Why don't you head on over to Purdue Pharma and argue all claims sourced to Empire of Pain be removed because a mere investigative journalist is not a pharmacologist?

This sort of thing is bread and butter for investigative journalism.

Do you have a policy objection to this high quality, glowingly received, Orwell-nominated secondary source written by the journalist whose Newsnight investigation first broke this story? Void if removed (talk) 12:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm perfectly aware that Wikipedia policy, as it stands, treats social sciences as if any person with a typewriter and a publishers contract is just as good as an academic expert. That doesn't mean I have to like it when some [redacted] journalist's propaganda piece is being used as a reliable source for social justice organizations. Simonm223 (talk) 13:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

The book (and our text derived from it) is factual. It is not an academic treatise on social science. Therefore, your comments about social science are irrelevant. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm bringing this up at the NPOV noticeboard so that people with more experience than me can weigh in here. I'm supposed to notify you so doing that here :) Sock-the-guy (talk) 16:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Seems like premature escalation frankly, please WP:AGF. Void if removed (talk) 11:19, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Telegraph "investigation" irrelevant

How is it encyclopedically significant that a notoriously transphobic org made a big fuss about a non-issue that a non-transphobe wouldn't be alarmed about in order to attempt and get a bunch of transphobes riled up about a charity that provides health care support for trans people? Simonm223 (talk) 16:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

We judge significance and due weight of an event by coverage in reliable sources, not based on whether we like the person or org that triggered the event. The fact that the charity commission have taken up the case suggests there was something credible about the allegations, and not a non-issue. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 17:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

But there isn't much coverage in secondary WP:INDEPENDENT sources, especially not the sort of WP:SUSTAINED coverage we'd expect to see by this point if it were genuinely worth an entire section; if the charity commission taking up the case was meaningful, you'd expect there to be coverage in independent / unbiased sources. As it is, the sourcing we have clearly isn't enough to justify an entire section. --Aquillion (talk) 22:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

@Simonm223: The Telegraph investigation occurred, and led to the Charity Commission investigation – this is highly relevant to the subject of the article. I see that on your Talk page you say that you are aware that ‘gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them’ is designated as a contentious topic on Wikipedia, and so I am surprised that you blanked an entire section of a gensex article without any prior agreement on the Talk page. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I didn't realize there was a total edit restriction here. I made a bold edit. Then instead of reverting even once I came to talk. So let's talk about WP:DUE and the telegraph rather than whether I was being too bold. Simonm223 (talk) 18:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I was not saying that there was an edit restriction on this article. I was suggesting that if you want to make a major change to a contentious article by deleting long-standing content, it is better to get consensus first. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps if it is relevant only because of the charity commission investigation then those 2 sections should be merged. Sock-the-guy (talk) 18:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

The two investigations are connected, but they are separate and very different investigations by two very different organisations, so it is better describe them in separate sections. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

How is the Telegraph "investigation" independently relevant? This is sub-Project Veritas antics. Simonm223 (talk) 11:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the section in question has been disputed since it was first added and has never had consensus for inclusion in the article; my recollection was that it was mostly just revert-warred back in when it was removed. My opinion is the same as it was back then; there's a severe lack of secondary coverage that would justify devoting an entire section to this. --Aquillion (talk) 22:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

It is very obvious to me that the Telegraph section should be tightened up a little and merged into the inquiry section. The Telegraph "investigation" is only notable because it led to the inquiry. We need to provide enough context to explain how the inquiry came to be triggered but the "investigation" is not of encyclopaedic interest in itself. It certainly doesn't merit a section. Had it not led to the inquiry then there is 0% chance that we would be talking about it, either in the article or here, at all. Giving it its own section is clearly WP:UNDUE. DanielRigal (talk) 00:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

What exact changes are you proposing? Sweet6970 (talk) 11:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Consolidate the two sections under the heading "Charity Commission Inquiry" and reduce the part that was previously under "The Daily Telegraph investigation" a little. I think that "and to have told users they believed to be as young as 13 that hormone-blocking drugs are "totally reversible"" could be removed as that is not really a controversial claim and it sounds like we are insinuating that it is. (Yes, I know that that is exactly what the Telegraph is trying to insinuate but they are not a MEDRS so that's not something we should carry into our coverage.) There are two sentences covering elements of the Telegraph's deception which could be consolidated into one without losing any substance. Also, see if there have been any further developments. If the inquiry has concluded then we should say what the outcome was rather than leave it hanging. If it has concluded with no action taken then we should say this and reduce the section further as that would mean that the whole thing is much less significant than was previously assumed. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

1) I think it would be misleading to include the material on the Telegraph investigation under a heading ‘Charity Commission Inquiry’. This would imply that the Telegraph was investigating on behalf of the Charity Commission. I have previously argued on this page that it is important to keep these 2 investigations distinct, because they have been made by very different bodies, and the nature and consequences of the investigations are very different.

2) You seem to be saying that the claim that hormone-blocking drugs are "totally reversible” is not controversial. If you are saying that it is agreed that hormone-blocking drugs are totally reversible, then I am astonished and baffled. The use of puberty blockers is extremely controversial, because there is no secure evidence as to whether they are reversible. That is why the NHS stopped prescribing them for gender dysphoria. Our article on Puberty_blocker says: Little is known about the long-term side effects of hormone or puberty blockers in children with gender dysphoria. Although puberty blockers are known to be safe and physically reversible treatment if stopped in the short term, it is also not known whether hormone blockers affect the development of factors like bone mineral density, brain development and fertility in transgender patients. There is limited high-quality research on puberty suppression among adolescents experiencing gender dysphoria or incongruence. No conclusions on impact on gender dysphoria, mental health and cognitive development could be drawn. The Endocrine Society Guidelines, while endorsing the use of puberty blockers for treatment of gender dysphoria, underscores the need for more rigorous safety and effectiveness evaluations and careful assessment of "the effects of prolonged delay of puberty in adolescents on bone health, gonadal function, and the brain (including effects on cognitive, emotional, social, and sexual development)."

3) How are you intending to consolidate the 2 sentences on the Telegraph’s deception?

4) Regarding the status of the Charity Commission inquiry – I do a search to check this every now and again, and I did so recently. The only official inf is the original announcement [5]. So it seems that the investigation has not yet been concluded. I think that the fact that it has been going on for so long probably means that some serious problem has been uncovered, though of course we cannot know at this stage.

Sweet6970 (talk) 11:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry. I probably should have said "medically controversial". I'm well aware that it is politically controversial. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

It is politically controversial because it is medically controversial. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Sweet6970, these are separate topics and should not be consolidated.

As the original announcement says:

The Commission opened a regulatory compliance case into the charity in September 2022 after safeguarding allegations were raised. It has now formalised its engagement by opening a statutory inquiry, due to newly identified issues about the charity’s governance and management.

We won't know the detail until the inquiry concludes, but these are distinct (and escalating) issues.

And no, there have been no further updates, after 19 months and counting, but it is definitely still ongoing. This is an exceptionally long time for an inquiry. Void if removed (talk) 08:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Simple question: Do we seriously believe that we would be covering the Telegraph "investigation", in its own section no less, if it had not led to the inquiry or some other significant fall out? Simple answer: Of course not!

British newspapers fish (and sometimes phish) for "scandal" all the time and when they don't find any they make something happen so that they can write about it. We don't cover day-to-day British newspaper nonsense at all unless something actually notable falls out from it. That's what happened here. This is a rare example of a scandal piece being taken up and run with by somebody else. It is only meaningful to mention it as a precursor to the inquiry that it precipitated because that's the only thing that makes it notable enough to cover at all. It is not notable in its own right.

Why are people so insistent that it gets its own section heading? --DanielRigal (talk) 12:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

The Telegraph investigation is independently notable because it was covered in multiple WP:RS, not just the Telgraph.

It is additionally notable because it directly led to the charity commission engaging with Mermaids.

However, subsequent to that, for reasons that are not public and don't seem to be specifically connected, the Charity Commission, having already engaged about this, escalated to a full enquiry. The timing here overlaps with a) the Mermaids v LGBA tribunal and b) the CEO of mermaids leaving, joining gendergp, and making awkward public statements about her tenure as CEO. A lot happened that can have contributed to the escalation and we shouldn't speculate by combining it all.

As far as I'm concerned these are two related but independently notable events. The one feeds into the other. Perhaps once the inquiry completes we will revisit with better information, eg a header to cover the whole inquiry, with the daily telegraph investigation as an initial sub heading within, but right now I think the status quo is the least bad option. Void if removed (talk) 13:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Answer to the simple question – Yes. And, as I have already said above, the investigations are separate and different in nature, and should be described in separate sections. I don’t know why you are so insistent about trying to downplay the role of the Telegraph in this. Whether one likes the Telegraph’s views, or approves of its motives is irrelevant – Wikipedia should reflect the factual situation. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC)