This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chloe Cole article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Add new text under old text. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Start a new topic Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 7 days

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography California Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women LGBTQ+ studies This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies Conservatism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Undo (this) edit by @FMsky as per previous extended confirmed protected edit request on October 20th for the same reasons. [1] Relm (talk) 23:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, the above discussion wasn't even necessary, can just use MOS:LINKONCE. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:45, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Undo [2] this edit by @FMSky as per previous extended confirmed protected edit request on January 1st. This is the second time the user has edited this specific phrase without acknowledging talk page discussion, and is veering towards WP:TEND with how the edits are phrased. Relm (talk) 14:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted it. Do you think I read every article's talk page archive before making a minor edit? --FMSky (talk) 14:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand how you could have missed 'in addition there was already an agreement by editors about this terminology on talk page' in the undo edit's explanation. If you see your edit gets undone and it mentions the talk page, you should check the talk page before editing the same part of the page. Relm (talk) 14:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a misunderstanding. In this edit [3], I only removed an unecessary pipelink. I didn't change the displayed text at all --FMSky (talk) 14:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't change the displayed text but changed what it links to. The 'double mastectomy' in question is a male chest reconstruction. I don't see why this should be removed given that it was clearly top surgery in this context. Relm (talk) 14:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, if this was discussed previously its perfectly fine with me. I just seems weird when the text "double mastectomy" already links to an article --FMSky (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is Cole's espousal of Christianity a defining feature of her? I thought 'religion' categories were usually kept to those within the religious hierarchy, or otherwise notable for belonging to the religion, rather than simply being members of a religious group or declaring a particular faith.

Ditto the 'converts to Christianity' category, though that might have more justification. Pincrete (talk) 06:19, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's all completely irrelevant. Who cares what her religion is. That's not what this article is about. There is some bias here and conveniently someone turned off editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-30915-08 (talk) 23:34, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the language is extremely strange in this article, and seems to (falsely) imply the Cole has questionable credibility.

For example, the sentence "Cole says that she began transitioning at 12," and "Cole has filed a lawsuit that claims that between the ages of 13 and 16 years old" etc... These sentences read as though there is doubt as to whether or not she did transition or whether or not she under went the various treatments, etc...

I would expect the article to simply state, "Cole began transitioning at 12," etc...

Elsewhere it in the article it becomes clear that there isn't any doubt that she did transition, and it is simply stated that she did transition, e.g., quoting from the article "In February 2018, she was prescribed the puberty blocker Lupron when age 13. A month later, she started testosterone injections, which she continued for two years. Cole had a double mastectomy at age 15 in June 2020."

Part of this may be subtle use of language, for example, the sentence "Cole describes how she began transitioning at 12," (replacing the word says with describes) would not read as questioning Cole's credibility. I suggest tweaking the language to remove the current strange word choices. 206.87.221.155 (talk) 00:22, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

yes. This is a biased and terrible platform for truth. 2600:4040:B1D2:3F00:60EC:2D3E:5874:ADEA (talk) 05:49, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you are absolutely right. I don't think this is biased writing, just clumsy formulation. Feel free to rewrite as you suggest. If anyone disagrees and reverts you, they will have to explain themselves here and we can discuss it, but I don't think anyone wants to doubt that she is telling the truth about her own lived experience. Doric Loon (talk) 08:18, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's clumsy writing, especially when the article itself says in wikivoice that "She is a detransitioner". Some1 (talk) 23:24, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You don’t think we should attribute in text things for which our only source is a political lobbyist making a claim about herself directly relevant to the lobbying she does? Snokalok (talk) 14:08, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have any reasons to doubt these claims? Do any sources question her claims? If no then we should be ok using a tone that doesn't cast so much doubt. Springee (talk) 17:51, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that she's actively built a career lobbying against access to transition care by citing her own transition story makes her a notable source but not necessarily a reliable one. That is, there's a conflict of interest that could keep her from describing the story on which her partisan political career is built neutrally. Snokalok (talk) 18:09, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If she were making claims about the best care practices, yes, we need to challenge/attribute. Factual claims about her own life, especially ones where the details aren't in question shouldn't be presented in a way that expresses doubt. She might be the source for a claim that her birthday is July 1st. Would we say, "Cole claims her birthday is July 1st" vs just stating it as fact. We can attribute things in a way that doesn't suggest scepticism and we should in cases where there is no reason to doubt the claims. Springee (talk) 19:42, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right okay, but Cole hasn't built an entire political career leveraging the fact that her birthday is July 1st. She's built a political career leveraging the story of her transition. That creates a clear conflict of interest for the purposes of taking her as reliable sourcing about the story of her transition. Thus we can't take her words on this as factual, we can only take them with attribution. Snokalok (talk) 22:13, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so do you think her claims are false? Do you think when she said 12 she actually meant 15? Where is the conflict of interest in the specific claims here? If we can't identify the cconflict why treat it as such? Springee (talk) 22:43, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying they're false, I'm saying we can't treat them as automatically true. But yes, a potential conflict of interest at play is that a political detransitioner - not necessarily her, but a political detransitioner - could fudge the details of their transition for the sake of justifying stricter bans. Such as, you know, arguing for bans on puberty blockers under the age of 16 when they themself transitioned over the age of 16. Snokalok (talk) 04:00, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a strong feeling on whether the statements should be attributed or not, but I do think we should reword "claim" to something less likely to read as expressing doubt, per MOS:CLAIM. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:47, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Snokalok The fact that she transitioned and then detransitioned is not in question, though. She has hoards of opponents and detractors, but no-one's claiming she's not a detransitioner. Her words are not the only source for that either - all the press reports state that much as a matter of fact. She began transitioning at 12 - there's no discussion there. Doric Loon (talk) 22:48, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying she's not a detransitioner, I'm saying all the press sources I've read through in the article attribute claims like age of specific medical treatments and the nature of said treatments to Cole specifically - and saying you transitioned at 12 is very different from saying you transitioned at, say, 16 - particularly when you've built a career on pushing age-related restrictions to gender affirming care. If the only source we have for the ages is Cole, then why aren't we attributing that in text? Snokalok (talk) 07:16, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wholly agree that the manner, timing of both transition and detransition, the advice she received, how she presented etc etc are entirely her own memory and are also the subject of a legal case against her care provider. She would be not be human if subjective considerations did not influence how she speaks of her experience. I agree that we should attribute as she is the only ultimate source of the details of her claims Pincrete (talk) 12:40, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've brought this to RSN.[4] Snokalok (talk) 20:33, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the opening section, add the prefatory clause: "Due to pressure from her doctors," Final wording: "Due to pressure from her doctors, Cole began transitioning at 12, and at age 13 began undergoing treatment which included..." Reason: Adds context to why she transitioned. Reference, Cole's own words: https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/medical-system-pushed-transgender-surgery-kids-now-its-facing-legal-justice 2 Salukis (talk) 17:47, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before posting an edit request. This edit request would fail the criteria for several reasons. It is one that would require consensus, but on top of this it also has WP:RS issues (see: WP:FOXNEWS) and a WP:VOICE issue.

Finally, because of this, in my view, it also does not follow WP:LEAD’s extra restrictive policy for the opening paragraph. Edits on this article should also observe WP:BLP. Happy editing, Slomo666 (talk) 20:18, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this edit request is reasonable, and would improve the accuracy of the article, as it states clearly in the complaint and several non-fox sources that Cole and her parents were coerced into transitioning under false pretenses. If no one opposes this change, I will update the lead accordingly tomorrow. Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 18:07, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: this edit would be incorporated in a way that makes it clear that these are allegations rather than fact. Something like "Cole alleges doctors pushed her into transition at age..." Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 18:09, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That is important, to attribute, but I would strongly advise you to find better sources and review the other policies and guidelines I have cited. Good luck and happy editing, Slomo666 (talk) 21:30, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe what is itching my brain is that her lawsuit isn't mentioned anywhere in the lead. Maybe something like "Cole filed a lawsuit against Kaiser Permanente and three medical professionals involved in her treatment in 2022, alleging that she did not receive sufficient information to provide informed consent." The sourcing here would of course be the same as in the lawsuit section. Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 14:14, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]