Talk:Chloe Cole

Dubious claims about medical transition

I noticed that Cole makes some unlikely assertions about her gender transition that are repeated without question in this article.

I don't see any evidence in the sources that these claims are independently verified beyond Cole's own word.

The claim that she began hormone replacement therapy at the age of 13 after only a month on a puberty blocker is very implausible and goes against what the WPATH standards of care were at the time.

I haven't read the entire SOC document but I can at least confirm that in 2018 (when Cole says she began HRT at 13), SOC 7 indicated that hormone therapy was limited to adolescents 16 years or older.

Kaiser Permanente does in fact claim to follow WPATH standards on their website. Cole says her doctor did not follow these standards of care, but again she seems to be the only source on this.

It's a pretty serious accusation of dishonesty and malfeasance by KP and I don't think Wikipedia should repeat it unchallenged unless someone can cite proof (NOT just what Cole herself reports) that it's actually true.

Is there any reason why this wouldn't be the case? If I'm missing something here, I would welcome being informed. OroborosCackling (talk) 09:46, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Speaking generally, if there are extraordinary claims that can only be verified by primary sources, then they can and should be removed until reliable secondary sources can be provided in corroboration. Primefac (talk) 09:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

It is very reliably sourced that she makes these claims - whether they are established as factual is going to be decided by a court. What is being implied here is that we should adjudicate as to whether the claims could possibly be true - based on what our reading of what should have happened. Pincrete (talk) 10:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Consider that KP may have failed to follow their procedures or followed them in a way that was incorrect. It's also possible that Cole in mistaken either by failing to understand the process or in context of regretting going through the process. Regardless, the sourcing that she is making these claims is reliable and the heart of her complaint against KP. It will be up to the courts to decide if her claims are factually correct. We should not remove the claims as they are rather central to her concerns regarding consent and minors. Springee (talk) 11:22, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

It seems that sources like The Economist present the information (see second paragraph) without even so much as a weasel word. I'm failing to see how does this not meet the bar of reliable secondary sourcing.

Additionally, I don't see how these claims are extraordinary or damaging to any individual, as far as I can tell Wikipedia isn't outing physicians who allegedly treated Cole or individuals who may or may not have approved the insurance claims.

Have any RS refuted these claims as the editor above has? If so, we should consider it for inclusion in the article, but I don't see a strong argument for removing anything at this point.Kcmastrpc (talk) 11:31, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Have any RS refuted these claims as the editor above has?, to the best of my knowledge no. But both we and sources alternate between noting that these are her claims, and stating the claims as facts. But only a court can decide how much of her story is proven and if culpability lies with anyone. Pincrete (talk) 16:29, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Without impugning The Economist as a publication, I dispute that The Economist article on Cole qualifies as a reliable source on her claims.

It doesn't seem to have a byline, and there is no indication in the story that The Economist fact-checked any of what Cole said.

They did print a vague statement from KP, but it does not address the allegations and probably reflects on a legal obligation on their part not to comment about Cole specifically as a patient.

Every article cited just reprints claims from Cole and her representatives. Sometimes these claims don't even completely line up.

The LA Blade says she detransitioned at 17, but The Dartmouth says 16. The Heritage Foundation says she started blockers at 12, but The Economist says 13.

I think it is an extraordinary and damaging claim to say that a medical institution (even if no individuals are named) ignored their own stated standards of care to the detriment of a patient.

If it comes out in court that what she says is true, then of course it should be included in her article. But that hasn't happened yet, so why are the contents of this lawsuit being treated as fact?

The only source for these unlikely claims is "Cole and her lawyers said this, and some journalists reported that they said it". OroborosCackling (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Also worth noting: The Wikipedia article does not say Cole "says" or "claims" to have gone on Lupron, HRT, etc at certain times. It simply repeats that she did.

She is actively suing KP, possibly seeking a settlement, and speaking to conservative news outlets like The Heritage Foundation that have a clear political interest in her narrative.

Is there a reason why we have to treat every public statement of Cole's about her transition as factual and unbiased (even though she has an obvious incentive to describe events in the most negative light possible) until the courts prove otherwise? OroborosCackling (talk) 19:38, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with OroborosCackling here. If her case prevails, then we can say her numbers are right. Otherwise, we should only say that she claims she transitioned that early. I don't think there's any indication that The Economist fact checked her claims and I frankly am very doubtful about sourcing anything trans-related to The Economist in any case.

It'd be WP:SYNTH at the moment to also say what she claims would be against ordinary treatment guidelines, but I'd be surprised if there wasn't a decent source that said so somewhere. Loki (talk) 19:58, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I will add the note that apparently The Economist runs all stories without bylines as a matter of course and this does not reflect on the reliability of the article. My argument is otherwise unchanged. OroborosCackling (talk) 20:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

It would have been against normal treatment guidelines at the time Cole said she was transitioning (2018, when SOC 7 was in effect). SOC 8, which does not have the same age limits, was not released until September 2022.

https://www.wpath.org/publications/soc

http://www.phsa.ca/transcarebc/about/news-stories/2023/wpath-soc-8-changes-to-gender-affirming-surgery-in-b-c#:~:text=In%20September%202022%2C%20the%20new,SOC%2D8)%20was%20published. OroborosCackling (talk) 20:15, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Additional note: According to The Economist Article, Kaiser Permanente definitely does dispute Cole's assertion that they didn't follow standards of care: "Kaiser’s broad statement, in response to a request to comment on the allegations, says it “provides patient centred gender-affirming care that is consistent with the standards of medical care and excellence”. This is not mentioned in the Wikipedia article, and I think it should be.

Also, at the bottom of The Economist article, it says "But the facts of this case— if they are as claimed— could give at least some of them pause for thought," which in my opinion indicates that The Economist did not actually check that the facts of the case are as claimed. OroborosCackling (talk) 20:28, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the rest here. It doesn't seem like the Economist has done fact-checking here, as opposed to just repeating her claims without attribution. I'm not actually fully in agreement about waiting for the court case to finish. We should follow WP:RS, so whenever RS either explicitly confirm or disprove her story, we should follow that. That's likely to happen after a judgment, but it's not quite the same. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 20:07, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with others only to the extent, that - without being needlessly weasel-ly - we should record that this is her account and her care providers say they followed guidelines fully. I don't know what fact-checking editors expect the Economist to have done. Without detailed interrogation of private medical records and everyone involved, it's difficult to see what they could have done beyond inviting a response from Kaiser, which they did and got and printed. The Economist is at least as concerned with the broader issues (of the aptness of guidelines, of how well they are being followed, and what the impact of this case could be) as it is with the detailed facts of this case. Newspapers fact-check that they are accurately reporting who is accusing who else of what, and what level of coverage those accusations are getting - they can't possibly be expected to fact-check the details of a case like this. Pincrete (talk) 07:46, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I at least wasn't trying to say anything about what kind of checking I expect The Economist to do, just that I believe they haven't done it despite stating Cole's claims in their own voice. I am used to reliable publications making clear whether claims they repeat have been independently verified or not. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 09:26, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 August 2023

I think that we should put more emphasis that these are all claims and they have not been proven in court. So when speaking about her transition, the word "claim" should be used fairly often when talking about medically transitioning. AT1738 (talk) 03:34, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lightoil (talk) 12:07, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

We already say Cole says that she began transitioning at 12 … … etc which is sufficient to establish that this is her version of what occurred. Pincrete (talk) 19:21, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Expanding the article

I saw the recent debate about the lead and I've seen a few sources published in the last few months regarding Cole I believe should be mentioned in the article. Here are some proposed additions I'd like to seek consensus for.

1. Cole has admitted to receiving funding from Do No Harm, a conservative advocacy group that hires lobbyists across the country to testify in support of bans on gender-affirming care for minors and lists Cole as a "patient advocate" on their website. [1][2][3]. An article in The Telegraph characterized her as a strong supporter of the organization;[4]
2. In May 2023, an article in the New York Times described Cole as the best known of a small group of under 10 detransitioners who are the faces of the efforts to ban transition for minors and restrict care for adults.[5] Amended per Elli's comment below (strike for deletion, underline for addition)
3. After participating in a Genspect conference, Cole testified in favor of Gary Click's proposed Ohio House Bill 68, which would prohibit transgender women from participating in women's sports and would ban gender-affirming care for youth, forcing them to medically detransition.[6]
4. In August, in an interview with The Telegraph, Cole compared her treatment to "Nazi-era experiments" and stated "I am not opposed to people transitioning but 18 would be a good marker for the start of the process. With the medical aspect, those under 25 are not fit to take on something like this."[7]
5. Update the lead to say ...following her own detransition. She has supported bans on public funding for gender-affirming care and insurance providing it.[8][9] She has appeared... Quick note, these sources are already in the body (paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Legislation section) and WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY

Best regards, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I'd be fine with all of these, but not sure about the wording on the second one. I don't really like parroting the "fewer than 10" figure from the article; saying "small group" would probably be better. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:27, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Updated! Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:35, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

First sentence admitted to receiving funding?? … the source says they paid her travel and why 'admitted'? Is it something you confess to? And that hires lobbyists across the country?? the source says "has hired lobbyists or sent advocates to half a dozen statehouses" I haven't read the others. I don't object in principle to some additions but the proposed text is 'loaded' and not supported as phrased. Pincrete (talk) 20:54, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I was trying to borrow/average the language of the various sources but see your point. Does the following wording address your concerns? Cole has received travel reimbursements from Do No Harm, a conservative advocacy group that has played a large role in supporting restrictions on gender-affirming care in various U.S. states and lists Cole as a "patient advocate" on their website... I removed the "for minors" because the HuffPost article notes their lobbying extends beyond that (though says they focus on it) and doesn't say "for minors/youth" though the AP article does. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:35, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

You're proposing adding more text about DNH than about Cole - links are there for a reason + it begins to imply one is trying to attach "guilt by association" if we spend too much time covering an org that she has a very tenuous relationship with. Also has played a large role in supporting restrictions on gender-affirming care in various U.S. states could be both more precise and more succinct IMO. Pincrete (talk) 04:12, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Can you please suggest a wording? My basic concern is we have 3 articles saying "DNH is an prominent organization that pays people to testify against trans rights across the US, very notably Cole" so some context on why it's relevant outside a link seems necessary. I agree the bit you quoted is wordy so would appreciate help shortening it! Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:11, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

This is where bias becomes a concern. HuffPo is clearly a biased source. In this case you can see it in several of their less than careful characterizations. After discussing Cole (single paragraph very deep in the article) the HuffPo claimed, "Conservatives often point to her story as justification for banning trans care." The HuffPo provides no source or evidence. I'm sure it's true in at least one case (ie we could fine 1 conservative who uses Cole's example as evidence that all trans care, not just for minors and not just irreversible procedures etc for minors. However, that appears to be a very poor summary of Cole's position and it's questionable if people use Cole's story for banning adult care. This is the sort of poorly supported claim that is a strike against this HuffPo article as an overall good source. Given the extreme bias of the LA Blade in this topic area I wouldn't use their coverage as proof of weight. Springee (talk) 17:23, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

We are not discussing putting that claim in the article, but it's one the APNews source cited made as well, as did the NYT piece from 2, so it's not quite so damning as you think. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:29, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

The exact changes in question aren't clear. It seems you want to add those sentences but not where in the article. #1 is a problem when you use terms like "has admitted" as if she were caught doing something illegal. The description of the Do No Harm group also appears to be scoped in conspiratorial terms. I'm not sure this is needed in general. #2, why mention the NYT's says X? It seems you are trying to insert a suggestion that the size of the group of unhappy detransitioners is small/insignificant. Such an implication would need to be made directly not obliquely. It's also probably best left in an article about detransitioners in general rather than a specific individual. #3. Who concluded that the Ohio bill would force detransitions? This seems like the earlier issue the article had were editors said Cole was in favor of banning all gender surgeries because of an association with a single bill. I'm not sure its relevant to include every time she has supported a bill. We also need to be careful about interpretations from sources with strong biases. #4. How does this compare with content already in the article? I'm always concerned when we are including a "sound bite" quote rather than her full statement or a summary of her statement. #5 That's a detail that is probably best left to the body of the article since it talks about a detail of how she thinks these things should be opposed rather than a generality. Springee (talk) 13:05, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm also unhappy about the tone of the proposed additions. This article has to be scrupulously neutral. If possible, it should draw mainly from sources which are themselves as neutral as we seek to be, or if that is not possible, balance friendly and critical sources carefully. Beware of implying that the subject holds views just because you see them as associated: she seems to have a very specific advocacy, and it may well be that she might testify in favour of a bill because she thinks it will protect minors, despite the fact that the bill also addresses questions like women's sports, on which she seems not to have testified. In an article which is just about her, reporting on what else the bill does sounds like mudslinging. Doric Loon (talk) 16:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

If RS say a bill effects more than minors we include that, not including that because you believe that's the only bit the person supported is WP:OR. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:14, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Please don't repeat that old discussion. Springee (talk) 17:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

It's a policy behind stable content that's been in the article for almost a year. See paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Legislation section. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:23, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

@Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist: It is NOT part of any Wikipedia policy that we can hint that a subject holds view X, on which they have not spoken, on the basis that they hold view Y and somebody else holds both views X and Y. This is a common form of social media misinformation, and we can't allow ourselves to do it here. Either find a source saying she has been involved in the sports debate, or don't mention the sports debate. (And for the record, I don't care whether she has or not - just get it right.) Doric Loon (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

We are not hinting at her views at all. Or even discussing them. We are stating the contents of a bill RS say she supported. Every single RS discussing the bill says it bans participation in sports AND healthcare for minors.[10][11][12] Please provide a source saying "she just supported the minors part of the bill", otherwise it's OR. There is a consensus supported by policy that we don't exclude parts of bills RS say she supported because an editor thinks she didn't actually support it. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:39, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't see why we should include verbiage about a particular bill in general. We're wandering into WP:NOTEVERYTHING territory. This isn't the BLP of a politician; she is a public figure who speaks candidly about issues she is passionate about, and that's the extent of what we should publish in Wikipedia voice. You have not convinced me otherwise. Kcmastrpc (talk) 21:13, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

@Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist: I think you have got the burden of proof back-to-front. If you want to add a claim to the article, you need to provide sourcing. Otherwise it is OR at best, and libel at worst. However, if someone else says that the sourcing is not adequate, that is not OR, it does not have legal implications, and they don't have to provide their own source to prove it. It makes no sense to accuse someone of OR when they are urging caution about putting something controversial into a biography of a living person.

In this case, I didn't say Cole just supported the minors part of the bill, I said you haven't demonstrated that she didn't. Given the rest of her bio, associating her with the whole of the bill would be a big claim that needs excplicit sourcing. And please don't be disingenuous - if we write that she supported a bill and then list everything the bill does without further comment, we are claiming she supports all those things.

I don't really understand your problem. If the other things in the bill are things Cole advocates for, it won't be hard to find explicit sources. On the other hand, if they are not what she is about, why on earth do you want to see them mentioned here? There are plenty of other Wikipedia articles where issues like transwomen in sports are relevant and can be fully aired. Doric Loon (talk) 10:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Springee,

1. we have 3 RS discussing it,
2. because the NYT said it, specifically "a small group of detransitioners, most notably Cole, has bee lobbying against trans healthcare across the country backed by Republicans".
3. The RS: it even would pull transgender youth who are already on medication off of their medication, forcing them to medically detransition.
4. It provides additional information on her views not covered in other sources.
5. WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. Your claim she only opposes adult healthcare to prevent minors transitioning is OR

Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:20, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not really interested in another long debate.

1. Two of the three are sources with a strong bias and the Huff Po's coverage of Cole illustrates playing loose with claims of facts. Additionally Cole is buried way down in the article. If you want to add this to the article on the group fine.

2. They way the sentence was written seems to be an appeal to authority, ie the NYT said it so it must be true right?

3. Taking that sort of characterization from an activist media source is questionable. Do you have any neutral sources that make the same claim?

4. Why is this needed? Why are you interested in pushing in terms like Nazi?

5. Just because it's in the body doesn't mean it must be in the lead. Springee (talk) 17:30, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Me neither, so this is my last reply before I let others input their thoughts.

1. AP News is biased? They devote 3 paragraphs to Cole in relation to DNH. Huff Po is "playing loose with claims of fact" for making the same claim as AP News and the NYT?
2. How is the NYT undue? It is a full length story that repeatedly highlights Cole as important to it.
3. The blade is not an "activist media source". If a bill bans gender affirming care for minors, without making a provision for those already on it, it's BLUESKY that minors already on it will be forced off it, ie forced medical detransition (See also Detransition#Forced detransition, which actually mentions this bill).
4. Please don't accuse me of being interested in pushing in terms like Nazi. A RS said Cole called her treatment "Nazi-era experiments". I'm fine removing that as I thought her comments on those under 25 are more relevant.
5. True, but why shouldn't it be apart from the OR reason you don't believe she supported the bits not affecting minors?

Best regards, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Please reply to my actual comments. I did not claim the AP was biased. I said 2 of 3. I already explained the appeal to authority in the way you are trying to use the NYT quote. The LA Blade most certainly is a activist source. That doesn't mean they are fundamentally flawed but it does mean we need to be careful with their characterizations/summaries of laws and we need to be careful when using them as a source to assign weight. Springee (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Are you objecting to any mention of DNH funding Cole? Why is AP News devoting 3 paragraphs to Cole undue here? And you said HuffPo was biased because of a claim AP News and the NYT have also made.

Are you arguing any inclusion of the NYT piece is undue? If not, please provide wording you'd be comfortable with. If so, please explain why it's undue.

The Los Angeles Blade is a subsidiary of the Washington Blade, the oldest LGBT Newspaper in the US. If you consider it an activist source, feel free to take that to RSN.

Yes or no: 1) are minors receiving gender-affirming care forced to medically detransition when that care is made illegal and 2) does the detransition article have a forced detransition section mentioning Ohio HB 68? Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Let's wait for others to weigh in. Springee (talk) 21:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I weighed in above. But to reiterate, I don't agree with your proposed changes, and I don't see enough neutral sourcing to support any change at the moment. Kcmastrpc (talk) 21:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Taking the proposals in order

1. More or less this seems fine to me. I do agree that it overstates what DNH does. We could likely just trim that back to something like conservative advocacy group Do No Harm. If readers want to know what the activities of DNH are, that's what the wikilink and their dedicated article is for. On admitted to receiving funding, to me that wording only makes sense if she's ever explicitly denied receiving funding for her actions and lobbying. Is that the case? If not, more neutral wording might be something like Cole has received travel funding from... The Telegraph source is fine, as is the sentence it's supporting.
   On the sources, while you could certainly make an argument about the HuffPost having bias, as this is a politics article so RSP#HuffPost (politics) applies, I don't see that being the case for either the LA Blade, or especially AP News. However source bias does not necessarily impact reliability, and there's no consensus that the HuffPost is or is not reliable for politics reporting. On the point raised by Springee that The HuffPo provides no source or evidence, there is no requirement for reliable sources cite their sources or evidence. And if you think the HuffPo, or the LA Blade are unreliable sources because of their biases, then I'd suggest opening a discussion at WP:RSN on this issue.
2. With Elli's changes, this seems fine.
3. This sentence seems more or less fine. On the forcing [transgender youth] to medically detransition language, The Guardian uses more or less the same language Transgender youth who had already started hormone treatments would be forced to medically detransition until they turn 18., though that source doesn't mention Cole. Regardless, banning gender-affirming care state wide is kinda WP:BLUESKY for the end result being forced detransition of trans youth. That isn't activistic language, that's just the plain and simple consequence of a such a ban.
4. Are there any secondary sources that either refer and paraphrase, or directly quote the two selected quotes from that interview? I'm a little concerned about cherry picking, why those quotes specifically and not any of the other ones from the interview?
5. This seems fine to me. The purpose of the lead is to summarise important information about the topic of the article. Cole's activistic activities is her primary claim to noteworthiness, so fully describing what those are and keeping that description up to date is important. The article body is pretty clear that she opposes both state and federal funding for provision for gender-affirming healthcare for both youth and adults. Again, that isn't really controversial nor in question, given the respective bills she has spoken in support of.

Now more generally, while adding up to date information is important and something that should be done in the immediate term, we should also look, in the medium to long term at how we're summarising Cole's activities. The activism section in particular is a rather large piece of chronological proseline. I think we should look at re-writing that section to be more of a summary of her activities. A lot of the excess verbage in that section could be trimmed by giving an overall summary of bills that she's spoken for or against. A lot of the bills that Cole has supported have similar outcomes (ie banning gender-affirming care, removing funding for it, etc), so concatenating that to a summary seems like it would be possible. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

AFAI can see, the only new content is that Cole said that she has had travel expenses paid by DNH, a conservative advocacy group who support bans on gender-affirming care for minors (and who list Cole as a "patient advocate" on their website ??). And possibly that she is - according to NYT - one of a small group of detransitioners, who have been lobbying against trans healthcare in the US. This doesn't substantially alter what we have already, but may add some details. I'm weakly supportive of that level of inclusion.

IMO, this really isn't the place to go into detail about any of the bills she has spoken up for nor do much beyond identify those who have paid her fares or other groups which she has had a relationship with. As Doric Loon says if we write that she supported a bill and then list everything the bill does without further comment, we are claiming she supports all those things. Apart from BLP or any other considerations, this is superfluous editorialising rather than WP:BLUESKY. If someone supports either strengthening or relaxing availability of abortion or gun control, it's enough to name the organisation or measure - and extent to which - they supported. We don't make the individual personally culpable for the extra deaths or other consequences resulting from that proposed legislation, no matter how obvious the connection might seem to us (or even sources). The place for discussing such 'issues' in any depth would be on the articles about the measure or possibly, briefly the organisation which proposes them IMO. Pincrete (talk) 15:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Are you objecting to 1) including the fact the Ohio bill banned trans youth from sports, which every single RS states, like Doric Loon, or 2) that it forcefully medically detransitions trans youth? Your statement is unclear to me. WRT the latter, it's an important detail since some bills grandfather in minors already receiving care, while others don't, and it has been highlighted by multiple RS as important. It is not some [making an individual] personally culpable for the extra deaths or other consequences resulting from that proposed legislation - it is saying what the legislation explicitly does, which similar legislation doesn't always do. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Even with someone like a politician (who we reasonably expect to take responsibility for the outcomes of measures they support), we don't ordinarily go into detail about outcomes on their 'personal article' pages - those usually belong elsewhere, especially if the 'outcomes' are surmisals like the 'forcible detransition'. Many of the sources are not about Cole, they are about DNH or the measures proposed by US States. Cole is merely mentioned in passing in those sources. It is understandable that those sources would go into greater detail about the possible outcomes of measures, since that is the subject of the source article. So what I am saying is that briefly establishing what measures and orgs Cole spoke in favour of, or received expenses from is sufficient detail. Otherwise it ceases to be a 'Cole' article and becomes a WP:COATRACK and stylistically very 'clunky' apart from other considerations.

Of course the lack of a 'grandfather' clause is a significant detail, as are others people have mentioned, and deserve to be covered wherever the various bills are covered, possibly on the DNH page in this instance. Pincrete (talk) 07:44, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Pincrete, you seem to have mixed up the sources (we are discussing point 3 in my original post). The source does not say "DNH supported Ohio HB 68" or even "Cole supported HB 68 on behalf of DNH", it says she suported HB 68. All RS agree: HB 68 bans trans healthcare for minors, forces those already receiving it to medically detransition, and bans trans youth from sports. It is not a possible outcome or surmisal, it is what the bill directly mandates. The only place I've seen the bill covered on WP is Detransition#Forced detransition of minors. I recommend we let others weigh in at this point. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:40, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I was discussing point 1.

The lack of care in the LA Blade piece in point 3 is shown by their claim: "prominent figures in this group, like Chloe Cole, may be paid for their appearances" - it then links to a piece where Cole acknowledges that she gets travel expenses from DNH. On no place on earth does receiving travel expenses="may be paid", it's wilful misrepresentation. And what does: Ohio proponents of a ban on gender affirming care testified “alternate treatments” such as witch doctors & conversion therapy were acceptable" mean. I can only guess that they they are being sarcastic, but it does make the piece 'less than perfect' when they can't be serious of factual.

Also, nowhere in LA Blade does it say that Cole supported the Ohio bill. Overall, anyway, I just don't think that the level of detail you seek to put in about the bill, belongs on a BLP article, even if the sourcing were more solid. Pincrete (talk) 19:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

The text in point 1 is supported by AP News and the Huffpost and is completely unrelated to the concern you've been raising about how we should cover the contents of a bill (only relevant to point 3).

The witch doctor bit means WP:HEADLINE applies (true for any RS). The LA Blade says The hearing, designated “proponents only,” featured testimonies only from those supporting it and says Cole gave testimony at the hearing (ie, supporting it). Can you please propose wording for how to describe House Bill 68 with an appropriate level of detail? Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:26, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Sideswipe9th, I agree with the points you raised and proposal to rework the lead after we sort this content out. WRT 4: other sources have commented on her classification of trans healthcare as "nazi-era experiments" [13][14] and another source also describes her proposing a limit on trans healthcare up to 25 years old. [15] The latter detail seems more important to me, since we know have two sources saying she's explicitly talked about restricting care for those who aren't minors Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:25, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Dating the info

Reference 6, by Evan Urquhart, https://www.assignedmedia.org/breaking-news/chloe-cole-gender-dysphoria-ongoing dates from March 2023. The publication itself is also poor quality in not dating their articles, but it links to a youtube interview which was properly dated Mar 12, 2023. In the intro our article says: "She still feels distress". That "still" is not age resistant without providing the date. Ferdilouw (talk) 02:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 July 2024

Thank you for improving this sensitive article.

Change from: "She still feels distress" Change to: By March 2023 she said she still felt distress"

Additional detail to add: Cole reacted to the 2024-07-22 Elon Musk / Jordan B Peterson interview on X by comparing her family's emotional experiences with gender transitioning, to that described by Musk. Reference: https://x.com/ChoooCole/status/1815544063254466691 Ferdilouw (talk) 02:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: This material requires coverage from reliable secondary sources to demonstrate that it is encyclopedically due for inclusion. Left guide (talk) 04:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 July 2024

Requesting change of the third sentence of paragraph 9 in the Legislation subsection of the Activism section (paragraph beginning "In Wyoming, state senator...").

Sentence currently reads:

"Bouchard said the focus on doctors reflects one of Cole's main concerns, namely that schools and doctors convince parents to allow their child to transition..."

Please change to:

"Bouchard said the focus on doctors reflects one of Cole's main concerns, namely her belief that that schools and doctors convince parents to allow their child to transition"

In its current form, it implies that is a proven, fully accepted fact schools and doctors are universally, actively engaging in this behavior. It is not a proven, fully accepted fact and should be treated the same way any allegation would be treated. If it was a direct quote from Bouchard that would be a different matter, but it is not, it is a summary of what he said. Sevey13 (talk) 02:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)