Talk:Transmedicalism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Its own article?

MatthewHoobin, I've been meaning to state the following (ever since I saw this article soon after you created it): I'm not seeing that this needs to be its own article. In my opinion, it's a WP:No page matter and can be adequately covered in the Healthcare section of the Transgender article. See what the current third paragraph in the Healthcare section states? When this topic gets more traction in reliable (preferably academic) sources, it being its own article will be more justifiable than the stub it currently is. That stated, I don't feel strongly on this matter. No need to ping me if you reply.

On a side note: Regarding this and this, it seems to me that emphasis should be placed on "truscum" being a derogatory term before being referred to as something people use for themselves. This is because it's used more so in a derogatory manner than as something that is stated with pride/has been reappropriated. Maybe change "themselves or others" to "others or themselves" for now. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it could be merged. I mean, this is just a paragraph of three sentences. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:08, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Agree, this shouldn't be anything more than a Wiktionary page --High Tinker (talk) 10:28, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed! natemup (talk) 08:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring

@Equivamp: Please explain why you believe my edits should be removed. I introduced the sexed brain theory and provided peer-reviewed sources that document it. Other users who have expanded the article with similar content have also had their contributions reversed. I am concerned that contributions are being reversed in an effort to suppress an explanation of the transmed viewpoint. Perhaps a reference to Causes of transsexuality could be beneficial, as transmedicalists use information provided there to support their stance. This is a controversial topic, and all viewpoints should be explained in a neutral manner. Currently, this article is a stub and does not adequately explain the transmed side nor those who disagree. Elix240 (talk) 20:05, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

The biggest issue with your edit was that the sources you cited do not mention the transmedicalist viewpoint at all. None of them even make reference to it, nor to the neologism sexed brain theory you included. You've compiled a list of sources discussing the BNSTc of transsexuals, and called it a frequently-cited theory supporting transmedicalism, but you haven't provided a source stating that it's frequently cited nor that it supports transmedicalism. That's what makes it WP:SYNTH; you've accumulated material from a number of sources to reach a conclusion that none of them actually say. Based on your edit, it's not clear that you read any of the sources you cited in their entirety, because I think their inability to support your addition becomes clear when reading.

Some examples:

• You wrote, transgender men have brain structures resembling cisgender men even prior to hormone therapy, but the Chung et al study says that only one female-to-male transsexual has been studied so far.
• The Trends Cogn Sci source casts doubt on the idea that it causes someone to be transsexual, as it states: Researchers searching for neural correlates of gender identity have reported that a subregion of the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BNSTc) is smaller in women and in male to female transsexuals than in non-transsexual men 62. Interpretation of this finding is complicated, however, because the sex difference in BNSTc does not appear until after puberty 63, whereas most transsexual individuals recall feeling strongly cross-gendered from early childhood. Thus, the difference in BNSTc may be the result of experience, or of the adult hormone treatment associated with changing sex.

This, of course, doesn't matter that much because this article shouldn't be a coatrack article about causes of transsexualism - this is an article about a specific ideology with regards to what qualifies a person as transgender. If you have reliable, secondary sources about what arguments transmedicalists cite or make to support their beliefs, that is how the information can be worked into the article. But there's just really not a lot of RS about the topic in general - I'm kinda surprised this article hasn't been AfD'd or merged into some other article.

I also referenced WP:MEDRS to you - it's not the main reason for the revert, but even if your other sources were able to support what you say, the Swaab source is WP:PRIMARY so should not be used to cite medical information - and should be used with great care in other cases. --Equivamp - talk 02:32, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed with your analysis. The fact that this being a separate page may be non-ideal was brought up in the discussion above as well. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

nonbinary

I had added a reference attempting to explain why transmedicalism can exclude nonbinary from the idea of transgender and it was reversed because the source (Trans Medicine: The Emergence and Practice of Treating Gender by stef m. shuster) is about healthcare providers involved in medical transitioning and not the concept of transmedicalism as a phenomenon among transgender people. However I feel like its difficult to encyclopedically cover the topic of transmedicalism without referencing the fact that the ideas come from medicine and don't originate from within the transgender community, I guess in a sense I agree with the need for a history section and I believe the way medical providers deal with nonbinary identities influences the way transmedicalists think about those identities because transmedicalism seems to be about believing in medical authority. The way medical providers think about gender influences how trans people interacting with those providers think about gender. I was trying really hard to avoid wp:SYNTH but User:Crossroads thought what I did was wp:SYNTH. Is there a way to write about the medical part of transmedicalism without synthesizing the material? Not much academic research has been done on this topic and I want to avoid user-generated sources, but this article is very much a stub right now. Feralcateater000 (talk) 21:05, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Which is why it should probably be merged. "The fact that the ideas come from medicine and don't originate from within the transgender community" appears to be your own WP:Original research. You are free to believe whatever about how medical providers talk about non-binary identities, but any sources used here have to be about transmedicalism specifically, or it is plainly SYNTH, a type of original research. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:04, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

It's not original research, the ideas of transgenderism being reliant on medical treatment coming from medical providers is in the book Trans Medicine: The Emergence and Practice of Treating Gender. "The development of the term 'transgender' must be understood within the medical and scientific community's investment in bringing order to perceived biological disorder." (16) I thought that explaining the difficulty in medically treating nonbinary identity might have encyclopedic value in explaining how disbelief in nonbinary identities connects to the other transmedical ideas (needing gender dysphoria and desiring medical transition) but I guess because the text doesn't mention transmedicalism by name it can't be cited? is this article supposed to only be about the internet phenomenon of transmedical beliefs among transgender people then? I don't fully understand how transmedicalism differs from other forms of biomedical models or forms of medicalization, which do often have history sections in them. Feralcateater000 (talk) 17:53, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Anti-Transmedicalist Bias

Most if not all of the information on this page only talks about the perception of transmedicalism from an anti-transmedicalist lense. Every single time an edit is made stating the pro-transmedicalist perspective, it is reverted. This goes against WP:Balance Your Perspectives, which states that all provable views should be represented fairly and equally in all articles. That is currently not the case with this one. Memories of (talk) 20:16, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I used to have more information on this topic that explained why certain beliefs became viewed as transmedicalism

Transmedicalism - Wikipedia

but it was deleted for being WP: SYNTH. All the academic sources I've been able to find both online and in print are biased against transmedicalism, which is probably why the article appears biased. Feralcateater000 (talk) 23:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Balance Your Perspectives is one of those essays that represents the view of the original author only, not one of those essays that are oft-cited by the community and de facto represent a wide consensus. Due weight, however, is part of policy: it says Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This relates somewhat to Feralcateater000's comment: if all reliable sources are "biased" then Wikipedia should be. It's not within our scope to go about "correcting" experts. — Bilorv (talk) 23:23, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Does this... Really need an article?

This is not a real term. This is just a way to discredit scientific discussion on the topic 108.30.25.252 (talk) 03:56, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

You can start a merge discussion (this wouldn't be an obvious/uncontentious merge) or nominate the article for deletion if you think it does not meet notability guidelines. — Bilorv (talk) 17:26, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Validity of Sources

The sources on this page on what transmedicalists believe are exclusively from individuals criticising transmedicalism. I'm not a hardcore wiki user, but I do have a degree and utilising sources entirely from one side, especially a side that holds a negative sentiment towards the idea, is not an appropriate way to discuss it. It leads to, and in my opinion, has lead to, bias on this subject. If unable to find any sources in support of the topic, then I believe it's a strong argument for deletion. 82.6.5.87 (talk) 13:30, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

The vast majority of sources in favor of transmedicalism fail WP:SELFPUB. The problem is that transmedicalism originates from the medicalization of transition by doctors, as initially cited from the book Trans Medicine: The Emergence and Practice of Treating Gender. The ideology of medicalization generally uphold the status quo, so those in favor of it are not necessarily required to defend their beliefs whereas those opposed are. Feralcateater000 (talk) 17:21, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

@82.6.5.87 Agreed, this article seems too flimsy all around. Duchy2 (talk) 11:30, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Ambiguous First Sentence

The first sentence

> Transmedicalism is the idea that being transgender or transsexual is contingent upon experiencing gender dysphoria or requiring medical treatment to transition

uses the word "or", suggesting that transmedicalism is the idea that being transgender requires gender dysphoria OR medical treatment (but not necessarily both).

On the other hand, the second sentence uses the word "and"

> Transmedicalists believe individuals who identify as transgender, do not experience gender dysphoria, and have no desire to undergo a medical transition through methods ... are not genuinely transgender

which suggests that both dysphoria AND medical transition are required. This is ambiguous -- which version do the sources actually support? Ritoban (talk) 03:55, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

sources are equally ambiguous which I think is why it’s worded this way

“Transmedicalists believe that being transgender is contingent upon suffering and/or medical treatment.” Earl, Jessie (October 21, 2019). "What Does the ContraPoints Controversy Say About the Way We Criticize?". Pride.com. Feralcateater000 (talk) 17:19, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I recommend reading WP:ANDOR. Xdtp (talk) 17:24, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

"Transmedicalism is the idea that being transgender or transsexual is contingent upon experiencing gender dysphoria." I think the "idea that being transgender is contingent upon experiencing gender dysphoria" and the "idea that being transsexual is contingent upon experiancing gender dysphoria" it's the two different ideas. Isn't transsexual the medical term (maybe the obsolete term in the Western academic literature) primarily for those transgender people who are binary and who have gender disphoria? Reprarina (talk) 18:39, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Bias article reverting changes

This article has a clearly anti-transmedicalist bias, some of the information is verging on mis-information, especially when edits to provide the other side of the discussion keep being reverted. Many transmedicalists do support nonbinary people, I add this in citing a reddit link, which yes would usually not be a reliable source due to the largely user-generated content. However, here it functions as a reliable source, as it is a transmedicalist subreddit showing support for nonbinary people and stating that their surveying of the other transmedicalists says that over 90% support nonbinary people. It includes transmedicalists directly saying that they support nonbinary people. Stop reverting changes which provide balance to the article, this is clearly not the first time this has come up, the anti-transmedicalist view of many of the authors come across strongly in this article and that is not what wikipedia is about. Kingfisherhide (talk) 22:31, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

None of what you stated justifies reddit as a reliable source. Find a real one and then the claims can be added. Polling the users of a subreddit is not scientific or reliable.

I'll also note that "neutral" does not mean "balanced", and "balancing" an article's points of view can often break neutrality. The views should only be given their due weight, and a claim sourced only by a reddit poll has zero. WPscatter ^t/_c 23:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Generally I use Google scholar to find reliable sources @Kingfisherhide I linked to the ‘transmedicalism nonbinary’ search so if you can find any type of survey results or something referencing the Reddit post mentioned that could count as a reliable source. Feralcateater000 (talk) 16:01, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Proposed change on transmed opinions on non-binary individuals

A little while ago, Sabbyisweird changed a sentence relating to transmed views on non-binary people. They cited a August 2021 paper titled "Who Counts as Trans? A Critical Discourse Analysis of Trans Tumblr Posts". Now I've previously read the paper prior to it being added, and I don't think it supports the changes Sabbyisweird is proposing, so I reverted. Sabbyisweird then restored the proposed content, with an edit summary directing attention to the "Who counts as trans?" section.

I re-reviewed that section, and I don't see how that supports the proposed change. The closest it gets to supporting the content is when the paper mentions one Tumblr user [conceding] that bigender people existed, but claimed that they were suffering from multiple personality disorder rather than being trans., which explicitly reads as though that user is excluding bigender people from the trans umbrella, due to assuming they have a personality disorder.

Sabbyisweird, if there's a specific sentence from that section that you think supports the change you've proposed, could you quote it here please? Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:54, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for reaching out here. The specific statement that I was referring to was the last sentence "This suggests that there may be more internal contradictions and debate in transmed opinions than many anti-transmed users suggest." in which it directly contradicts the existing statement. The revision I made did not suggest that transmedicalists do not consider non-binary people to be under the trans label, but that there is a debate deeper within the transmedical community, as reflected by the journal. I could change my wording to more properly reflect the journal; however, the journal disputes the assertion of the source currently up, showing that there is not a clear and decisive opinion on this subject. Seeing as the issue isn't one-dimensional a change in wording to the previous statement would be necessary. I would be willing to talk on how to change the wording in specific, or if another source would be more clear to your likings (despite the current one being sufficient in displaying the ambiguity). Sabbyisweird (talk) 04:03, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

So that last sentence doesn't specifically support the proposed change, as the sentence in our article is narrow in focus relating to transmed views on non-binary people and identities, and because the language used by the research paper is far broader and not as specific. Depending on the phrasing, I think it might be more appropriate to add a more generalised sentence about a divide in internalised transmed opinions. But even then, that paper is very non-specific as to the nature of the "sometimes contradictory" views espoused. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:11, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Would it then be okay to keep the original statement and add after that there are internal debates within the transmedical community on these topics? Sabbyisweird (talk) 04:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Maybe, I'd like to see your proposed new sentence first, as there may be a better positioning for it elsewhere in the article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:24, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

The new sentence would be "There are also major divides and debates within the modern transmedicalist community on these topics." Sabbyisweird (talk) 04:32, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I'd consider dropping the word "major", as I don't think the research paper goes that far in describing divides.

How about, with the rest of the content of that section in mind, something like "There are divides and debates within the transmedicalist community on the exact definition of who is or is not transgender." This could then be positioned as the second sentence, with the start of the third being slightly changed to "Many transmedicalists believe individuals who...".

Then we could look at the other sections of this paper, and other sources in general and see if there's any other content we could include. The section on the definition of dysphoria seems relevant here, as that too is a debate within the transmed community. This would allow a bit more of a narrative flow; starting with a divide in opinions within the community, that many believe dysphoria is necessary, while also debating the definition of dysphoria. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:48, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I am definitely fonder of your method of wording it and where to place the information. I updated the article to match, and I would be more than willing to examine the other sections of the journal and update the article, as it is true that some of the other information seems relevant to the debates. However, it is getting late for me so I will be taking a short break, we could resume this discussion as of tomorrow. Sabbyisweird (talk) 05:02, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Looks good! No worries about sleep, there's no rush when working on Wikipedia content. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:04, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Removal of statement

Nowadays, transmedicalism is more non-binary friendly. But in the past, all transmedicalists denied/neglected the non-binary existence, they were later called "nb-skeptic" or "gender skepticists" (the transmedical conterpart of gender abolitionists). So I believe that statement should added back, if we have reliable sources on current transmedicalists' view on non-binariness, then we can reformulate that statement. Maybe that anon will be reverted, but they added more interesting See alsos. 45.179.29.236 (talk) 19:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I've reverted these edits as they do not appear to be verifiable to the existing sources in the article, and uses of terms like "biopsychosocial model" and "(cultural) appropriation" are synthesis if not sourced. Four links in the "See also" section is already quite a few: the more links, the less useful or read each link becomes.

On this claim, reliable sources are needed to show that either transmedicalism as a movement has changed or that a subcommunity supportive of non-binary people has sufficient prominence/influence that it is due weight to mention on Wikipedia. — Bilorv (talk) 13:29, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

The biopsychosocial model is sourced. 217.74.147.178 (talk) 14:20, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I remember seeing its mention here. 45.179.29.236 (talk) 15:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

needs a criticism section

there’s only a single sentence that gives a critical perspective, for such a controversial ideology in the trans community it’s baffling that it isn’t talked about in this article 2600:1700:F830:4FF0:9DCB:EDE0:FA68:CC26 (talk) 02:33, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Criticism sections are not encouraged. It is nearly always better to include the notable critical views in the existing sections than to make a separate section. I'm not sure how much attention this issue has received. If you have any suggestions for Reliable Sources covering criticism then please say. --DanielRigal (talk) 03:06, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Why? 80.197.76.157 (talk) 15:54, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

In general, it's best to integrate negative information in with other information and not split it out for being negative. Splitting it out can create an impression of WP:FALSEBALANCE no matter how long the criticism section is relative to the rest of the article. Splitting small amounts of criticism to a short criticism section makes a topic seem more controversial than it is by virtue of having any criticism section, while having half the article being a criticism section makes it seem like criticisms are even with non-critical information (almost never what we want), in addition to being terrible for organization generally. Loki (talk) 19:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I thought an older version of the article had false balance and seemed more biased. I don't think everything problematic needs to be showed into a criticism section, but at the moment there isn't a history section. Transmedicalism also isn't the same as transmedicalist movements, so the concepts and the derived movements seemed too entwined in earlier versions. I think a lot of the issues could be addresed historically as well as just as general critique of psychiatry, surgery, normativity and biomedicine. At this moment I don't think the article is mature enough, but it will hopefully be easier to create more balanced sections later. 80.197.76.157 (talk) 15:38, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Truscum is not a slur

Can we get truscum off the LGBTQ+ slurs page? Truscum might be used as a derogatory term, but I would argue that it isn't a slur. It's akin to called TERF or MAP a slur. I don't quite know how to use Wikipedia in this way so if this isn't the right place or format to ask this please let me know! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2d80:af0f:2000:9d40:df7d:2b10:676f (talk) 20:55, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what article you're talking about: can you link it? For future reference, that article's talk page would be the right place to begin discussion (if you think it's not clear cut enough for you to just make the change yourself). However, it appears that you're presenting an argument based on your own opinion, rather than based on reliable sources. Per Wikipedia:Verifiability, if "truscum" is listed as a "slur" in some location then there should be an accompanying reference, and if there's an issue then you might argue "this reference isn't reliable because...", "this reference is misrepresented by the article as..." or "other references like these ones take the position that..." — Bilorv (talk) 23:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Okay, looking at your other edits I see the problem now: the redirect truscum was categorised in Category:LGBT-related slurs. We often have problems with categories lacking verifiability, but they should still be well-sourced. The redirect gives no sources for this contentious descriptor ("slur"), so I've changed the category to Category:LGBT slang in this edit. I hope that fixes the problem, and thanks for raising it. — Bilorv (talk) 23:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Anything containing the word "scum" is a slur. 80.197.76.157 (talk) 06:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

History section

I added a (first pass at a) history section. User:Equivamp reverted. Fair enough. All I can say is that it's inherently difficult to write about the history of a topic that only gained a name within the past decade or so. But to me it seems pretty clear that the history of medicine in the context of trans-ness is relevant to an article on the belief that being transgender is contingent upon experiencing gender dysphoria or undergoing medical treatment in transitioning. I took pains to not frame the first subsection as being explicitly about transmedicalism, because that would be ahistorical. But there are plenty of articles, such as Socialism, that begin their history sections by discussing related ideas that were not contemporaneously associated with the article's topic. With that in mind, are there specific parts of what I wrote that you see as particularly SYNTHy? I'm also not sure where I've editorialized.

If the answer is that there's no room to discuss anything related to transmedicalism prior to when the term was coined, then I agree that this is too small a topic for an article. I would not be opposed to moving this to something like Role of medicine in trans identity, which could discuss the historical aspect, the 2010s–present notion of transmedicalism, and the opposition thereto. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 18:23, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Socialism is a good choice for comparison here. Check that first paragraph of its history section, and refer to the sources - all of them explicitly connect the pre-Socialism subjects (the Mauryan Empire, Plato, etc) with the subject of the article. Your edit, on the other hand, is bereft of the same perspicuousness. You describe a shift in focus to medical transition, but your same sources could be used to extrapolate that there has always been a focus on medical transition. This type of thing is exactly what the SYNTH policy is supposed to prevent.

It doesn't get better from there - your edit combines the facts that Sweden both began to allow trans people to change their legal sex, and also began to offer HRT for free, to support the claim that recognition of trans people by Western governments came to hinge on medical transition. Note: It's possible that this could be due to an error, because the source you cited re: Sweden doesn't appear to mention trans people at all.

The sentence The notion of gender dysphoria as an illness became a key argument for trans rights in the United States and other Western countries is wholly unsourced. --Equivamp - talk 19:08, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to look further at what sources are available and get back to you. Briefly, though, I'd reiterate my question about editorializing. You're correct that the latter quoted sentence was unsourced, which I apologize for, but I don't think it meets the definition of editorializing. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 22:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I think Equivamp is being overly hostile in tone here, but I do fundamentally agree that content should only be included if the source relates it to transmedicalism. Thank you for your efforts so far: it's a lot harder to build something up than to tear it down, and we do need a lot of expansion here. I would maybe recommend working in draftspace on topics like these, and getting feedback before trying to add it to the main article directly—ping me or ask on my talk page if you want any feedback from me. — Bilorv (talk) 23:50, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Categorizing things as important without a source, or describing overt transgender identities (implying that the things discussed previously, eg hijras, are covert transgender identities?) classifies as editorializing, imo. --Equivamp - talk 04:45, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with characterizing either of those as editorializing (unsourced, at worst SYNTH, but not editorializing), but we can move past that. I do think you were right on the core of this, that this stuff shouldn't go in the article without a source tying it to transmedicalism. I'm continuing to think about how to discuss the history of medicalization of trans identities while respecting that consideration; I'll keep you posted. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 05:04, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• As stated at the top of this talk page, this article could probably be merged into Transgender. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:11, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I do not believe that it SHOULD be merged, seeing as it is an ideology that is largely separate from the subject of that article. Transmedicalism relates to political disputes surrounding transgender issues, and the divide between proponents and critics of transmedicalism can be traced along political lines. Sometimes even party lines, with the token few transgender talking heads on the right wing conservative and the libertarian sides being exclusively transmedicalists, whereas the ideology is generally shunned in progressive circles, which is where the substantial bulk of the transgender community can be found. I know this is original research on my part, but i'd be surprised if there weren't reliable sources covering this. It's not exactly an underground topic. But even if there aren't, I think leaving this article as a stub is preferable to merging it with Transgender. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 13:32, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I started to add a history section. What I have currently added needs to be shortened and then more recent history needs to be added. It is just a start. I don't have time to edit it further today. 80.197.76.157 (talk) 18:59, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Please don't revert it, but feel free to edit, shorten it or add something else. 80.197.76.157 (talk) 20:49, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Please reintroduce the section that was deleted that was about the history on Tumblr at the very least. 217.74.147.240 (talk) 05:46, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Work removed without corresponding and it is now locked

I don't think all the changes should have been removed. No one have been active in responding on the talk page. The edits were done in good faith. I guess some of the history could have been removed, but I was in an ongoing process of improving it. I thought some of the context was relevant. Although I agree it should have been shortened. Other people have for a long time called the page out for being biased. I think this just locks it to bias. Adding history was an attempt to counter the bias that other people have addresed. 217.74.147.240 (talk) 05:28, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#Massive expansion of "Transmedicalism. The main issues were unreferenced content or synthesis. If a source doesn't use the term "transmedicalism" then it's not relevant enough to use here. Readers can find context using links in the article. This doesn't preclude changing or adding context or provenance, but it has to be reliably sourced and the reference must say what we claim it says. — Bilorv (talk) 22:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think there was unreferenced content 80.197.76.157 (talk) 10:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC)