The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Not a notable neologism. An attempt to redirect to gender dysphoria was reverted, and discussion on that talk page suggests there is not WP:MEDRS coverage to justify any content on this neologism. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 15:26, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
""Sources"[2] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability."
""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content."
I just went through the search results for gender euphoria in Google News and Scholar (which includes Google Books). As per the sources there, gender euphoria fails GNG as a standalone article, because reliable sources are either primary or insignificant coverage. The insignificant coverage consists of mentions in connection with gender dysphoria, that's why I propose Merge. Coverage might be enough for a standalone article in two or three years. Trimton (talk) 16:34, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge It's not a neologism, being attested with the stated meaning since the 1990s [1][2]. I could see a case for a merge-and-redirect, but not deletion. As for the WP:MEDRS concern, the article whose abstract says that gender euphoria has yet to be rigorously defined contains, in the text, a brief review of what had been written to date about it. (As MEDRS observes, the abstract necessarily presents a stripped-down version of the conclusions and omits the background that can be crucial for understanding exactly what the source says.) A review section is naturally not as comprehensive as a review article, but it is enough to indicate that the term is attested and even defined, albeit imprecisely. McGuire and Morrow (2020) defines and employs the term and qualifies as a review. There may only be a limited amount to be said, but we can say something, and the turns of phrase in the current text aren't so bad to start with; hence, merge. XOR'easter (talk) 16:55, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The two sources cited for the term being used since the 1990s don't really do that. One refers to the name of a newsletter intentionally meant as a pun, rather than a defined medical phenomenon. The other appears to mention gender euphoria in the title only. OsFish (talk) 09:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Use as a play on words is still a use. The second does not mention it in the title, but in the text: I do not wish to suggest that a sex-change operation is the only way a womancan be(come) a man. Kate Bornstein’s Gender Outlaw (London: Routledge, 1994)provides an interesting account of the (im)possibilities of achieving gender euphoria through a sex change. Changing "dys-" to "eu-" is an obvious enough move, so it's not surprising the coinage has been around for a while. XOR'easter (talk) 15:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Gender dysphoria is a medical topic, so sourcing about it, including about topics that purport to be its counterpart, need to comply with MEDRS. As one of the few sources on Gender euphoria states in its abstract, gender euhproia has thus far not been rigorously defined or operationalized within health research. It doesn't have enough non-MEDRS sourcing to stand on its own either, tbh. --Equivamp - talk16:49, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @ 力 and XOR'easter: Status as a neologism (...neologismosity) has no causal relation to notability, or did I miss something? An article subject can fail notability even though its title is not a neologism. Conversely, an article subject can be notable even though its title is a neologism. In that case, we'd rename (to a plain English description), not delete, I would think, as per WP:NEO. Trimton (talk) 17:14, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is a reason I used both words. It's fairly clear to me this is a neologism. While I don't think it's notable separately from gender dysphoria, opinions may differ. The term is a well-defined term, which is different than some of the articles that are nominated at AFD. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:11, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is not a neologism, being at least dated to the 1990s as XOR'easter cites. I would support merge if it were a subordinate term to gender dysphoria, but it is on equal conceptual footing despite being a less common term. Jmill1806 (talk) 19:09, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If we sketched a tree of concepts related to gender, GD and GE would be at the same horizontal level of that tree. GE is not, for example, a subcategory or supercategory of GD. If it were, I think merging would be more reasonable. Jmill1806 (talk) 14:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Equivamp is right, Jmill1806. Some concepts on the same "level", even opposites to Wikipedia-notable topics, are not themselves notable. They lack sufficient significant coverage in reliable secondary sources and thus fail Wikipedia's general notability criteria. They also fail subject-specific criteria. Take religions. Islam has an article but Non-Islam and London Woodland Witches do not (and should not, for now), even though some people use the concepts [3][4]Trimton (talk) 21:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Equivamp and Trimton. You raise good points. Of course I'm aware there's no such policy. I'm just explaining it as part of my reasoning for WP:GNG. Policy is never going to have enough specifics to make every decision, so we need to Use Common Sense and think critically about each case. To me, it seems like the conceptual footing of the term helps us make sense of sources that use both GD and GE. Does that make sense? Jmill1806 (talk) 20:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, it's not hard to include it on an equal conceptual footing. You'd just add a sentence somewhere that says something like "The opposite of GD is called gender euphoria, i.e., having positive feelings". You wouldn't need to make 50% of the article be about the concept. And presumably there's another word somewhere for the historically normal human existence, which is being so busy trying to survive that you didn't really spend a lot of time thinking about exactly how you feel about the relationship between your body and your identity. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:53, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As Equivamp said, Gender dysphoria is a medical topic, so sourcing about it, including about topics that purport to be its counterpart, need to comply with MEDRS. In no way is this on "equal conceptual footing" with gender dysphoria (GD). GD is in the DSM-5; this is a vague concept ("not been rigorously defined or operationalized") that has been tossed around now and again in some papers. Regarding the claim that McGuire and Morrow (2020) defines and employs the term and qualifies as a review, here is the entirety of what they say on it: Several major constructs have been identified and investigated as contributors to gender identity, including gender development, body image, gender dysphoria/euphoria, and genderqueer or nonbinary identity....Newer nonbinary measures allow for a full spectrum of identity measurement, assess both dysphoria and comfort in affirmed gender (sometimes called gender euphoria), and meet assumptions of longitudinal measurement, meaning TGD clients can take the same measure multiple times, regardless of where they may be in a transition process [32]. This is plainly not a secondary source giving significant coverage to this topic; it is a passing mention or a dic-def at best. This paper is in a dermatology journal (i.e., not the relevant fields of psychology or psychiatry). Further, this study of respondents to an online questionnaire is not a secondary source in the sense that WP:MEDRS requires: Examples include literature reviews or systematic reviews found in medical journals, specialist academic or professional books, and medical guidelines or position statements published by major health organizations....Any given primary source may be contradicted by another. The Wikipedia community relies on guidance of expert reviews, and statements by major medical and scientific bodies....primary sources normally contain introductory, background, or review sections that place their research in the context of previous work; these sections may be cited in Wikipedia with care: they are often incomplete and typically less reliable than reviews or other sources, such as textbooks, which are intended to be reasonably comprehensive. Oh, and: Other indications that a journal article may not be reliable are...its content being outside the journal's normal scope. The fact is that this topic lacks the secondary MEDRS sources needed to have an article. As for the idea that we can merge it, well, any such content will have to be removed from the GD article for failing MEDRS (the current text on this concept is cited to ethics and dermatology journals). Then we're left with a redirect not mentioned in the destination. The answer is deletion. Crossroads-talk-04:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
About the idea of not mentioning gender euphoria in gender dysphoria: Not everything dermatology and bioethics journals write about is skin, hair and metaethics, or has to be. If they write about the psychological effects of dermatological treatment, or the ethical significance of GD/GE, they are writing in a medical capacity, and Wikipedia can cite them on what they write (in gender dysphoria) if they're secondary sources and due (which they areBradford 2019 is in this case). Trimton (talk) 07:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Trimton here, generally speaking. The sources are in scope for what they are discussing (they would be out of scope for, say, the pharmacokinetics of anti-androgens, probably). We're not trying to cover the quantitative success rate or side-effect incidence of a specific drug, but to see whether a concept has been attested and defined at least semi-formally. The relevant literature is going to be psychological and bioethical more than biochemical. Short but to-the-point discussions of a topic typically aren't enough to substantiate an article dedicated to it, but they can indicate that it's worth covering as part of a larger whole. Gender euphoria doesn't yet have a detailed definition with a breakdown into bullet-pointed criteria, but it's documented well enough that we can say the term is employed as the conceptual inverse of gender dysphoria without yet having a detailed breakdown into bullet points. A source calling a concept a major construct is an indication that it's significant enough to mention even if they don't pour out the word count about it. XOR'easter (talk) 14:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Trimton, you may wish to read WP:MEDRS and the explanatory page WP:Biomedical information - medical ethics journals are generally focused on ethics, not on medicine, even if the topics overlap - for this reason, most ethics journals are only considered reliable for the ethical issues, not for any medical information they may contain by necessity. That being said, and I don't know if this would work here as I haven't investigated the sourcing in those journal articles, sometimes ethics journals cite MEDRS compliant sources for their sources, so they can be a good starting point to find better sources. Also note that there is a general consensus among editors, not just in medicine but elsewhere, that experts in one field publishing in a completely different field should be taken with a grain of salt - there's either better sources that can be found, or there's a reason that no expert in the specific field has said the same thing. Crossroads wasn't referring to the notability here but to the ability to merge content - the information present in this short article right now is virtually all biomedical information that requires MEDRS - and as such, if it is not MEDRS compliant, there is nothing to merge. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Berchanhimez, I did read them carefully and found nothing on either page that would support your specialisation requirement. Going beyond MEDRS and requiring specialisation makes (WP:COMMON) sense when the question is complex like, if a particular drug cures cancer. You won't get a reliable answer to that from a geriatric care ethicist. But GE is not that complex or WP:EXTRAORDINARY that bioethicists or dermatologists (that work with trans people) couldn't write about it with authority. It's simply the fact that trans people may not feel dysphoric about their entire body. They may like the parts that match their preferred gender, and some authors call this gender euphoria. The phenomenon exists widely enough (see the non academic sources linked, and more such as Advocate). Since we know it exists (in relevant subpopulations of the gender dysphoric), we should not apply anything beyond the letter of WP:MEDRS and WP:Biomedical information. The situation would be different with my hypothetical cancer drug. We wouldnt know if it works just from reading about it in a bioethics journal, and reading testimonies about 'how this drug cured me'. We do know here. Merge with gender dysphoria but I add: we must clarify that the word 'gender euphoria' isn't an established term like dysphoria is. Trimton (talk) 00:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you missed the part of the section titled Biomedical journals which goes into how journals may specialize and common sense dictates it also means that writers may specialize. That doesn't even get into the fact that the two "MEDRS" in the article right now are small primary studies - which are explicitly stated to be virtually useless for MEDRS - only large, well conducted, and extremely necessary primary studies are usable as MEDRS, and others do not meet that criteria. Furthermore, you may wish to note that policies and guidelines are to reflect consensus, and if consensus is against a policy/guideline, it's the policy/guideline that's wrong/incomplete. The consensus among editors on the English Wikipedia is that for medical sources, sources written in journals or by experts from a completely different field must be taken with a large grain of salt and carefully evaluated, as I explained above. If that's not clear in the pages you're reading, then it's not that the consensus is wrong, it's that the page may need to be updated to clarify the consensus. The information in this article is not compliant with MEDRS sourcing requirements and as such there's nothing to merge - that doesn't mean that MEDRS-compliant information can't be added to another article, just that this short article has nothing of use. If you wish to challenge that consensus, feel free to start a discussion on the talk page of gender dysphoria to discuss whether your desired additions should be made or not - but alas, that's out of the scope of this deletion discussion and I will not make further comment here on MEDRS issues relating to another page. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
the quote from WP:MEDRS goes Journals may specialize in particular article types. A few, such as Evidence-based Dentistry (ISSN 1462-0049), publish third-party summaries of reviews and guidelines published elsewhere. Nowhere does it say we shall not use the writings of generalists. If what you say is consensus beyond my suggestion of common sense, why isn't it in the guideline? Where else is there evidence of this purported consensus? You are right that Ashley & Ells 2007 [bioethics] (and Benestad 2010, not in the article) are primary sources. But Bradford 2019 [dermatology] is a secondary source: The construct of Gender Euphoria has been suggested by several writers (25, 26). For instance, Ashley and Ells (25)(...)Trimton (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See my 04:53, 25 April 2021 comment. MEDRS defines a secondary source as review articles and the like. It also specifically cautions against using introduction and conclusion sections of primary research, as I noted. Crossroads-talk-23:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MEDRS says A secondary source summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources to provide an overview of current understanding of the topic, to make recommendations, or to combine results of several studies. Examples include and then what you cited, not This is limited to. Bradford fits the defintion precisely; it summarises two primary sources to provide an overview. ⠀Trimton⠀00:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Trimton, this is exactly the problem - it summarizes two selected sources - that is not providing an overview, that is merely citing two sources. Providing an overview (what a secondary source does) requires examining multiple (not just two) primary sources and comparing, contrasting, and examining their methodology to provide an overview of all current research/understanding on a subject. Your attempts at wordsmithing your way into defining a primary source as a secondary one are disruptive and you need to stop. The introduction or discussion sections of primary studies are virtually never in depth enough to classify as secondary sources. Selective cherrypicking of sources in one primary source is not secondary. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:19, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gender dysphoria. The concepts are related, as different points of view on issues around gender assignment and gender identity. And for better or worse, the medicalized version is likely to be discussed more widely. Cnilep (talk) 22:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What I'm seeing offered in support of keeping or merging seems very thin. If it is likely to become a defined subject of sustained formal medical or psychological study, then we should wait until it does. Trying to piece together how a variety of people have used the collocation "gender euphoria" as if there is an established coherent underlying concept before that work has been done in the literature becomes original research. "The opposite of gender dysphoria" isn't enough. OsFish (talk) 09:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The meaning doesn't have to be "piece[d] together"; the references are perfectly clear that "the opposite of gender dysphoria" is what they mean. There's just not a lot to say beyond that. It's established and coherent, though not with enumerated diagnostic criteria. XOR'easter (talk) 15:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"The opposite of phenomenon X" is not in itself a coherent definition. Diagnostic criteria do not all have a spectrum where both extremes indicate the presence of a condition. For example, the meaningful opposite of self-harm is not an obsessively safe and healthy lifestyle. It's just the absence of self-harm. This is why it is better as Wikipedians to wait until there is a coherent positive diagnostic description established in the literature.OsFish (talk) 04:56, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gender dysphoria. As discussion here has established, the phrase does exist in literature but there is insufficient basis for a Wikipedia article on the concept. The Keep rationale offered by User:Jmill1806 is just plain bizarre: notability doesn't work that way. MartinPoulter (talk) 10:54, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with Crossroads but will expand my opinion as well - a neologism should not be based solely on temporal newness, but also based on both professional and colloquial adoption. A term that's been around for centuries can still be a neologism if it never got widespread adoption - once a term has gotten widespread adoption it can no longer be a neologism, but until then, it may still be no matter how many decades have passed since it was "coined". I personally do not, based on the sources here, in the article, and from a google search, see enough usage to consider it more than a neologism at this point. The vast majority of usage is from activists and people who are not medical professionals - whereas "gender dysphoria" has become an accepted medical term, this is hardly used in a medical sense, much less become accepted as such. Wikipedia doesn't need to "lead the charge" and can wait to have an article, or even a redirect, for this term until if/when it becomes widely used. I appreciate the work of those trying to improve coverage of gender dysphoria and transgender topics on Wikipedia, but we must keep in mind that it's our job to write an encyclopedia - and be sure that we don't let our desire to improve coverage of a topic lead to inadvertent overt activism for a topic that is beyond what we should be doing as an encyclopedia. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, with specific redirect -- I agree that it's not sufficiently widely used or precisely (medically) defined to warrant its own article. But it is used in some medical sources, and these are not read only by medical personnel. We should mention it in Gender dysphoria as a term that, while not yet strictly defined or incorporated into standard medical terminology, nevertheless sees some use as a convenient shorthand. And the redirect should point fairly precisely to that brief discussion of the word in Gender dysphoria, so that the interested reader need not scour the whole article to find it, though of course they can do so for relevant information. --Thnidu (talk) 02:10, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: No clear consensus regarding whether to merge or delete
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 Need any help?15:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per the WP:MEDRS concerns outlined above. As and when the term gets significant usage in reliable, independent sources that meet the various standards we have for medical articles, then the term deserves an article. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 15:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Gender dysphoria. This appears to be a nascent idea without too much hard scientific discussion. Per WP:NOPAGE, what's worthy of mention about this topic can be placed on a more solid page where it has good context, especially seeing as this is solely defined as the opposite of gender dysphoria. Not to mock the concept or the genderqueer community, but a part of me has to question this trend where in an attempt to be inclusive a handful of people are simply creating pseudoscientific categories of the "norm", so to speak, so as to not make a certain community feel stigmatized by a label. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.