Deletion of Gender euphoria

Comment: 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:There is no deadline (WP:DEADLINE||WP:ACTIVISM)

Comment: As Equivamp said, {{tq|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 {{tq|McGuire and Morrow (2020) defines and employs the term and qualifies as a review}}, here is the entirety of what they say on it: {{tq|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. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09546634.2019.1687823?journalCode=ijdt20 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  requires: {{tq|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: {{tq|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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:MEDRS)

Comment: to Gender dysphoria. This appears to be a nascent idea without too much hard scientific discussion. Per , 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
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOPAGE)

Comment: It's not a neologism, being attested with the stated meaning since the 1990s https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=p60N-QvxvD8C&oi=fnd&pg=PA1#v=onepage&q=gender%20euphoria&f=falsehttps://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gabriele-Griffin/publication/262111824_The_Dispersal_of_the_Lesbian_or_Re-Patriating_the_Lesbian_in_British_Writing/links/56eff55008ae3c6534365e78/The-Dispersal-of-the-Lesbian-or-Re-Patriating-the-Lesbian-in-British-Writing.pdf. I could see a case for a merge-and-redirect, but not deletion. As for the  concern, the https://doi.org/10.1080/09546634.2019.1687823 article whose abstract says that gender euphoria has yet to be {{tq|rigorously defined}} contains, in the text, a brief review of what had been written to date about it. (As MEDRS observes, {{tq|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. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Anusha-Lachman/publication/340242464_International_Considerations_Variations_in_Practice_An_African_Perspective/links/5eb13992a6fdcc7050a99862/International-Considerations-Variations-in-Practice-An-African-Perspective.pdf#page=42 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
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:MEDRS)

Comment: per the  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:MEDRS)

Comment: I generally agree with the  arguments. We should avoid the risk of suggesting medical authority where there is none
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:MEDRS)