Talk:Marci Bowers

There is a lack of information

For instance, says that Marci Bowers at 19 intended to begin gender transition. Did that ever go ahead? It never says if Marci Bowers was born a female or male, for instance, so it is difficult to know. 31.211.201.66 (talk) 06:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

There's multiple cited sources in which she self describes as a trans woman. That would imply they did. 2601:C2:187E:580:69F8:83F0:4695:E05B (talk) 11:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Shrier Interview

Pinging @Snokalok: and @Swood100:.

The added material makes reference to an interview with Bowers published by FP and an article in NYT which in turn references the FP.

Bowers has subsequently said that the FP article misrepresented her opinions.

See: https://marcibowers.com/transfem/dear-colleagues-clients-and-friends/

If Bowers says that the article misrepresents her position, it should not be used as a source for what her position is.

I would also point to this statement:

https://wpath.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Joint-WPATH-USPATH-Letter-Dated-Oct-12-2021.pdf

In which both women re-affirm their support for the use of PBs to treat gender dysphoria.

HenrikHolen (talk) 22:32, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

How about the following, taken from her dear-colleagues-clients-and-friends letter:

Bowers has stated that her concerns regarding consent and puberty blockers include long term sexual function, for which data is lacking. She said that it is far from certain that patients will sustain permanent sexual dysfunction, and that patients undergoing puberty blockade need to be tracked and this measure documented.

Swood100 (talk) 02:47, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

I think that would be an improvement, but I would clarify that she is only taking about transfeminine persons. Also, I think it would be best to add the context that she still supports the use of puberty blockers to treat gender dysphoria. HenrikHolen (talk) 23:05, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

I think that we should still include the part about tanner stage two specifically Snokalok (talk) 01:04, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Do you have a source for her comments about Tanner Stage 2 other than the Shrier article, given that it's unclear what parts of that article she disavows? Here’s a source in which Bowers says, “Every single child or adolescent who was truly blocked at Tanner Stage 2 has never experienced orgasm. I mean it’s really about zero.” She's speaking about transfeminine individuals here. Is this an adequate source? Swood100 (talk) 03:09, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Or it's also available on YouTube here. Swood100 (talk) 04:57, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

How about this:

Bowers, referring to children transitioning from male to female, says that her concerns regarding consent and puberty blockers include long term sexual function, for which data is lacking. She says that it is far from certain that these patients will sustain permanent sexual dysfunction and supports the use of puberty blockers. She believes that it is still possible that adults with a history of puberty blockade will go on to have satisfying sexual lives but says that that these patients need to be tracked and this measure documented. In one interview Bowers advised that patients progress beyond the early stage of puberty known as Tanner Stage Two before puberty blockers are administered. She urges these patients to undergo “a bit of puberty” because of the positive impact she believes this will have on their eventual ability to achieve orgasm and on their potential fertility, as well as on the production of extra genital skin growth sufficient for subsequent genital surgeries.

Swood100 (talk) 20:50, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

YouTube and X/Twitter are not considered appropriate sources. I would cut the part about the interview. If it can't be sourced to an RS, then it shouldn't be included. HenrikHolen (talk) 22:33, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

So, reading over this letter, she very much makes it clear that consent, sexual function, and fertility are not her primary concerns, contrary to the Shrier article, though she would prefer more data be collected. Her main concern seems to be with the efficacy of bottom surgery if puberty blockers are started too early. I don't think any proposed text should be devoting substantial space to her views on consent and sexual function beyond that she wants more data to be collected, it's very clear in this letter that her concern is bottom surgery. Snokalok (talk) 23:09, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

She concludes the piece with advice to patients and families seeking guidance, with the words, “I will say this based on my own professional experience…” and follows that with two bullet points. Would you exclude either of the bullet points from the article?

You said that you wanted to include her concern about the effect of puberty blockers at Tanner Stage Two on later sexual function. Have you changed your mind about including that? Swood100 (talk) 01:09, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

So, two things.

1. I said that I wanted to include that her concern was specifically connected to puberty blockers before Tanner Stage Two. Sexual function was something you added in, and I didn't scrutinize the FP closely enough to dispute it when you added it back in but seeing now the letter outlining that the Stage Two is in regards to bottom surgery, I do. I maintain the importance of specifying tanner stage two, I have never claimed that sexual function was the root of her concern.

2. As for the bullet points, I think we can paraphrase them perhaps but a direct quote of something so large would be UNDUE. Snokalok (talk) 13:55, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't think this should be here. Per RSN, the Free Press is unreliable[1][2][3] Given we have multiple sources that Bowers thinks here words were twisted, we should be cautious. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:56, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

This paraphrases the two bullet points that Bowers presents as a summary of the advice she gives to patients and families. It also brings in her view that patients need to be tracked and "this measure" needs to be documented, "this measure" being a reference to "satisfying sexual lives." I don't think it's correct to say that her main focus is on bottom surgery such that her other concerns are incidental and can be left out. She gives two bullet points, and we should include both. Tanner Stage Two is not mentioned by name but urging patients to undergo “a bit of puberty” first says exactly the same thing in other words.

Bowers, referring to children transitioning from male to female, supports the use of puberty blockers but urges these patients to undergo “a bit of puberty” first because of the positive impact that she thinks this will have on their eventual ability to achieve orgasm and on their potential fertility, as well as on the production of extra skin growth sufficient for subsequent genital surgeries. She believes that ideally a gender surgeon should be consulted before puberty blockade is begun in order to evaluate the sufficiency of skin growth. She believes that it is still possible that adults with a history of puberty blockade will go on to have satisfying sexual lives but says that data on this is lacking and that these patients need to be tracked and this measure documented.

Swood100 (talk) 03:17, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

This version again misrepresents Bowers' views. For one thing, we are allowed to cite the Shrier Interview for uncontentious claims, and saying "a bit of puberty" makes it sound like she's vibing her way through this, or that she thinks that puberty is actually kinda good for trans people. She doesn't, her views as represented by her focus on Tanner Stage Two specifically, say that this is a necessary evil as a matter of tissue development to have material for bottom surgery - which brings me to my second point. Once again, you heavily prioritize sexual function and fertility as her concerns in writing this over extra skin growth, I don't know why you keep doing that, despite her making clear that skin growth for surgery is her main concern. And fertility is not even a concern we should be discussing since gender transition beyond puberty blockers renders one infertile anyway, as Bowers mentions herself, so imo any text mentioning fertility as a data concern in the specific context of puberty blockers reads as slightly disingenuous.

I'll try writing the text this time.

Bowers, in regards to adolescent male to female transitions, supports the use of puberty blockers once the patient has reached Tanner Stage Two of pubertal development, so that there is sufficient tissue growth for gender reassignment surgery to be an effective option later on. She also believes that while adults treated with puberty blockers as adolescents do go on to lead satisfying sexual lives, long-term data on these patients' adult lives is lacking, and that they should be tracked and documented. Snokalok (talk) 14:36, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Bowers, in regards to adolescent male to female transitions, supports the use of puberty blockers once the patient has reached Tanner Stage Two of pubertal development…

This is not an accurate paraphrase of what she said. It seems like she wants these patients to get beyond Tanner Two before this treatment begins:

“I’m not a fan of blockade at Tanner Two anymore, I really am not”

You reduce her reasons for this to one:

so that there is sufficient tissue growth for gender reassignment surgery to be an effective option later on.

But here are the reasons she gives in the article:

But honestly, I can’t sit here and tell you that they have better — or even as good — results. They’re not as functional. I worry about their reproductive rights later. I worry about their sexual health later and ability to find intimacy.”

Why do you insist on cutting out reproductive rights and sexual health?

You say that fertility/reproductive rights are not an issue because “gender transition beyond puberty blockers renders one infertile anyway” but one of the principal arguments made in favor of puberty blockers is that they can be reversed without any permanent harm being done. In other words, they are a risk-free way to pause puberty and give the person more time to think it through. That is a significant benefit. Bowers says that fertility is something that many transfeminine persons are willing to forego, but clearly there are many who are not willing to forego it. Otherwise she would not say “I worry about reproductive rights later” and she would not list fertility as one of the reasons that a patient should “stand a bit of puberty.”

Your position seems to be that “sexual health later/ability to find intimacy” is insignificant to Bowers but what does she say that indicates that? In your rendition the mistiming of puberty blockers is not of concern to her:

She also believes that while adults treated with puberty blockers as adolescents do go on to lead satisfying sexual lives, long-term data on these patients' adult lives is lacking, and that they should be tracked and documented.

However, she says that long term sexual function is one of her “concerns…data that we currently do not know.” And why does she say that “it is still possible” that adults will go on to have satisfying sexual lives unless her concern is that “it is still possible” that they will not? Why does she say that “it is far from certain” that patients will sustain permanent sexual dysfunction if she is not concerned about a very real chance that they will sustain sexual dysfunction? Isn’t it clear that she believes that permanent sexual dysfunction is a possibility if puberty blockers are administered at an inappropriate time in the Tanner sequence? Take a look at what she says here. I realize that this can’t be used as a source but we can still use it as background material to help us interpret her writings. Why do you insist on presenting it as if she has little to no concern about long term sexual function?

Bowers talks about the need for tracking and documentation. In the third paragraph she links “data we do not know” to her concerns regarding long term sexual function. In that same paragraph she says, “It is still possible that adults with a history of puberty blockade will go on to have satisfying sexual lives,” clearly indicating that whether or not they will is the “measure” that needs to be documented. Isn’t it clear that she wants to document where in the Tanner sequence it is safe to administer puberty blockers so that the patient does not lose long term sexual function? Swood100 (talk) 02:48, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Right, let's do this.

This is not an accurate paraphrase of what she said. It seems like she wants these patients to get beyond Tanner Two before this treatment begins

Would "after tanner two" work?

You say that fertility/reproductive rights are not an issue because “gender transition beyond puberty blockers renders one infertile anyway” but one of the principal arguments made in favor of puberty blockers is that they can be reversed without any permanent harm being done.

Because Bowers herself in her letter goes out of her way to deemphasize fertility concerns, saying that her concerns regarding fertility are "secondary" on the grounds that transition renders one infertile anyway, so we can't exactly emphasize her views on fertility as the primary concern - which seems to be your primary stance.

nd why does she say that “it is still possible” that adults will go on to have satisfying sexual lives unless her concern is that “it is still possible” that they will not?

Because there are a million reasons why a person might not lead a satisfying sexual life? This isn't strong enough to make a statement in wikivoice with any serious weight. Beyond that though, the entire quote is "Sexual naivete is a potential concern but not central to my argument and it is far from certain that patients will sustain permanent sexual dysfunction. It is still possible that adults with a history of puberty blockade will go on to have satisfying sexual lives, but these patients need to be tracked and this measure documented." ie, this is very clearly a position more doubtful of sexual dysfunction than certain.

Take a look at what she says here I'm going to be honest, I am not going to subject myself to watching a Drop the T video.

Isn’t it clear that she wants to document where in the Tanner sequence it is safe to administer puberty blockers so that the patient does not lose long term sexual function?

No, as she's stated across numerous sources at this point, her primary concern is surgical viability. I don't know why you keep trying to make sexual function her primary concern when she very clearly doesn't. At most her concern regarding sexual function can be characterized as "It's probably fine, but best to double check". Snokalok (talk) 12:41, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Maybe we can cut through the differences you and I have about how Bowers’ position should be interpreted by just citing the New York Times. Their editorial oversight ensures reliability for reporting statements or opinions. How about this:

According to the New York Times, Bowers has expressed concerns about the rigor of pediatric gender care and the potential impact of puberty blockers on later sexual function. With respect to adolescent male to female transitions, she supports the use of puberty blockers after the Tanner Stage Two of pubertal development, so that there will be sufficient tissue growth for gender reassignment surgery to be an effective option later on.

Swood100 (talk) 22:20, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

The issue with the second sentence is all MEDRS basically agree on this. An issue with the first too but mostly the second as MEDRS all agree about the risks of puberty blocking too early. If we mention this, we should note that MEDRS agree. But if we're saying "she said something. MEDRS agree", why bother?

I think mentioning this at all is mostly UNDUE. We're relying on a sensationalized NYT characterization of a unreliable source, which she maintains took her out of context (unmentioned in the NYT), and which doesn't talk about rigor. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:11, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

We're relying on a sensationalized NYT characterization of a unreliable source

But the New York Times is a reliable source with strong editorial standards. Their editorial oversight ensures reliability for reporting statements or opinions. This is not WP:MEDRS because they are stating Bowers’ views, not medical fact. You’re saying that the NYT is not a reliable source in this instance because this article is sensationalized. What’s your evidence for sensationalism? If you are claiming that the NYT has lost its status as a reliable source the burden of demonstrating that is on you.

which she maintains took her out of context (unmentioned in the NYT)

She said (in the “Dear colleagues, clients and friends” document on her website) that the Shrier article took her out of context. We assume that a reliable source will be aware of that and characterize her views in a way that is reliable. That’s the point of a reliable source. For example, in the same document on her website she clearly expresses concerns about the potential impact of puberty blockers on later sexual function: “My concerns regarding consent included long term sexual function…” Therefore, there is plenty of justification that we know about for a reliable source to report that Bowers has concerns about the impact of puberty blockers on later sexual function, and to conclude that this was not what Bowers was referring to when she complained about being taken out of context.

and which doesn't talk about rigor

It does talk about rigor. From the NYT article: “In October 2021, two prominent WPATH members — Marci Bowers, a surgeon and WPATH’s president-elect, and Erica Anderson, a psychologist and former president of WPATH’s U.S. affiliate, both of them trans women — went public with concerns about the rigor of pediatric gender care and the potential impact of puberty blockers on later sexual function.” Swood100 (talk) 03:52, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

List of The New York Times controversies#Open letters on transgender coverage - to be clear, it's a well documented fact that MEDORGS such as WPATH, dozens upon dozens of LGBT rights groups, almost 1000 current and former NYT writers, and tens of thousands of subscribers have criticized the NYT for biased and misleading coverage about trans people in their editorials and straight news reporting.

• This particular article defends conversion therapist Kenneth Zucker and the ROGD theory...

This is not WP:MEDRS because they are stating Bowers’ views, not medical fact - I did not say we need MEDRS. I said Bower's view is that of MEDRS. Imagine a one-off comment by a prominent vaccine scientist that "Vaccines are a good thing". Or a statement by the head of NASA that "the world is not flat". Or a statement by a famous surgeon that "you should wash your hands before surgery". Those would not be due in their articles because there's nothing about the quote that would be useful or which sets them apart from the field. Same here. Bowers said PBs should happen after Tanner stage 2 and there are risks on sexual function of providing PBs too early. All MEDRS agree on that view, so why are we bothering to mention it?

Being an WP:RS means we can use it. It doesn't mean we must use it. Or must include a certain detail. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:44, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

almost 1000 current and former NYT writers, and tens of thousands of subscribers have criticized the NYT for biased and misleading coverage about trans people in their editorials and straight news reporting.

Let me make clear that the first sentence, the one sourced to the NYT, is the only one I am defending. I’ll let Snokalok defend the second sentence. The status of the NYT as a reliable source in WP:RSPLIST is unqualified. There is no exception for its coverage of trans people. Are you saying that the NYT is not considered a reliable source for its coverage of any of the controversies listed in the List of The New York Times controversies, or that you are surprised that when a NYT article doesn't support side A of a controversy, proponents of side A might consider the coverage biased and misleading?

This particular article defends conversion therapist Kenneth Zucker and the ROGD theory...

This NYT article contains neither the word “Zucker” nor the word “rapid”.

Bowers said PBs should happen after Tanner stage 2 and there are risks on sexual function of providing PBs too early. All MEDRS agree on that view, so why are we bothering to mention it?

First you object to the sentence because it is biased and misleading. Then you object because the sentence depicts Bowers as holding an opinion that is held by everybody and is too obviously true to be worthy of mentioning. Which is it? Second, the NYT said that Bowers “went public with concerns about the rigor of pediatric gender care and the potential impact of puberty blockers on later sexual function.” This negates your suggestion that these are positions that everyone agrees with, making the mention that she holds them a truism. One doesn’t “go public with” positions that are too obvious to mention. Furthermore, according to WPATH puberty blockers can be administered to adolescents who have reached Tanner Stage Two. Bowers, though, appears to want these patients to get beyond Tanner Two before these medications are administered. She herself has said that this is an issue on which there is too little data. She said in her “Dear colleagues” piece, “It is still possible that adults with a history of puberty blockade will go on to have satisfying sexual lives, but these patients need to be tracked and this measure documented.” So there is far from universal agreement, mostly because of the lack of systematic evidence on the question of what is “too early”.

Being an WP:RS means we can use it. It doesn't mean we must use it. Or must include a certain detail.

OK, but if the NYT thinks it is noteworthy to point out that Bowers holds this viewpoint why wouldn’t it be noteworthy in a Wikipedia article about Bowers? It seems to me that the only argument against including it is that some people don’t want a connection to be made between puberty blockers and later sexual function. What other reason would there be? Swood100 (talk) 02:25, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

1) WP:RSP is a guide, not an end all be all

• Simply put, when MEDORGS and human rights watchdogs and 1000 of your own writers call out an editorial board for targeting a minority, you can't handwave it away

2) Online and off, trans activists attacked journalists and academics who explored whether the sudden rise in dysphoria among teenagers was linked to social media and peer influence or reported on “detransitioners” — people who abandoned a trans identity and sometimes regretted undergoing medical transition.

• Those links are to articles on Zucker and ROGD. It claims that WP:FRINGE activists were attacked by "trans activists" as opposed to laughed out by the medical community

3) First you object to the sentence because it is biased and misleading. Then you object because the sentence depicts Bowers as holding an opinion that is held by everybody and is too obviously true to be worthy of mentioning. Which is it? I've been consistent on this[4][5] - the issue is it's biased and misleading to present these comments as standalone views of Bowers rather than the overwhelming view of MEDRS.

• The NYT saying "she went public with concerns" does not diminish it cites an unreliable source and those concerns are shared by all MEDRS. Going back to my old example, if the NYT said "The director of NASA went public with concerns that the earth is not flat", and the NYT had a documented history of pro-flat-eartherism, it'd be ridiculous too include.

4.1) OK, but if the NYT thinks it is noteworthy to point out that Bowers holds this viewpoint why wouldn’t it be noteworthy in a Wikipedia article about Bowers? - All of the above

4.2) It seems to me that the only argument against including it is that some people don’t want a connection to be made between puberty blockers and later sexual function. What other reason would there be? - this is assuming bad faith. If you want a connection to be made between puberty blockers and later sexual function - this is not the place to do it. That would be the article Puberty blockers, with MEDRS. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 02:50, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Note our policy on Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion - just because a source exists about something, doesn't mean that means it must be included. It appears in this case in light of the fact that the WP:BLP, which means heightened scrutiny on inclusion of any contested material, the explanatory essay on WP:INTERVIEWS specifically recommends to us Wikipedia:Interviews#Check for clarifications and corrections, which appear to be present in this case in the form of Bower's letter that her words were taken out of context and thus, while verifiable, it puts this statement in a problematic place, which means that since this is a BLP question, usually means we err on the side of caution and trust that the BLP knows best about their own words and don't include it, or when we do, per WP:VOICE we wouldn't state this as fact, but merely an opinion.

We do also have WP:WSAW essay on when a source is wrong which gives us several suggestions how we'd handle this (e.g. stating it, but also stating that they were corrected/refuted by the person) if consensus is for inclusion to begin with. Raladic (talk) 05:17, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

References