User talk:CyborGhost

From Mad Gender Science!
Jump to: navigation, search

Planned articles[edit]

Masculinizing HRT / Feminizing HRT

  • Baseline and Monitoring
  • Induction of Puberty
  • Hormone Regimens
  • Effect timelines
  • Risks

Acquiring HRT Prescriptions

  • ICATH vs SOC
  • Competency of MHPs
  • Psychosocial Assessment
  • Referral letter
  • Diagnostic guidelines
  • Treatment eligibility

Notes from 10/23/2017![edit]

Random info[edit]

  • Cyproterone acetate might cause withdrawal effects because of Addison's shock. We should consult the drug guide, probably for the MoA stuff.

Todo[edit]

  • Establish a Discord room for peer-review, and a simple peer-review process.
  • Add a "Featured Article" system, replacing the "Portal Index."

Before implementing the featured article section we need to actually have some reviewed articles to be featured, we should start by counting all of our articles as unreviewed, and then quickly pushing them through the review process, cleaning them up to closely follow the editing guide before changing the "portal index" into the "featured articles" section.

  • Add clear site guidelines (on the How to Edit) section, about how to *avoid giving medical advice*, and specific site rules about medical advice that we'll fill in as we figure out the lay of the legal land more.
  • Take the guides from around the internet (on how to dodge gatekeepers, and which doctors are good), and roll them into a wiki page, probably within the "Healthcare world map" section.
  • Add "Finding a doctor" and "Affording a doctor" as a major focus of the content we're adding... that's the best first-line of harm reduction.
    • Compile list of doctors who use sliding scale
    • Find discounts on medication through generic alternatives

Priorities[edit]

P0: Making sure there's nothing that looks like medical advice[edit]

Basic strategy[edit]

All this advice was taken into account when writing the editing guide article, but we still need to go through every article and impliment it.

Get rid of anything that looks like a "guide," and move the content into the mechanisms. We don't want to tell people what they should be taking, we want to tell them:

* How the molecular systems work.

* What the risks are (harm reduction.)

* How the drugs they're taking can affect those molecular systems.

If someone must resort to DIY, they should be able to understand all the mechanisms at play. This harm reduction approach should be legally safer for us, and medically safer for people.

This is a good way to encourage people to check their doctor's work, which is a totally legitimate (and life-saving) endeavor.

Directly quoting medical sources is totally legit. Anything that looks like medical advice must be directly cited (as a block quote section) from a standard, peer-reviewed resource. Case studies in the literature can also be cited this way.

Make sure it's crystal clear that we're not giving them medical advice, we're just quoting an accredited source with attribution.

Mad gender science[edit]

All this advice was taken into account when writing the editing guide article, but we still need to go through every article and impliment it.

Mad gender science should be either:

* Too technical for non-experimentalists (the sane) to try ordering stuff and doing things.

* Vague enough that more details would be required to make it actionable.

Also, all mad experimental stuff should be put clearly separate from sane stuff.

P1: Establish a peer review process[edit]

Let's also dedicate one of our chatrooms (maybe the mad science room - don't want to fragment ourselves too early) to discussing reviewed articles and editing articles. We have some really awesome contributors already; we just need a little bit of standardization.

Intro[edit]

We should probably have two tags, probably:

  • Unreviewed - there should be a banner clearly marking and explaining these.
  • Reviewed - no banner here, but we can put it in a "Reviewed" category or something.

For new science articles, or major additions to science articles.

We should send it to all the contributors with @contributors in the Discord. Someone should look it over, double-check everything and then, if nobody objects, flip it to "Reviewed."

Bonus[edit]

The newest "Reviewed" article can be shown as the featured article on the main page!

Before implementing the featured article section we need to actually have some reviewed articles to be featured, we should start by counting all of our articles as unreviewed, and then quickly pushing them through the review process, cleaning them up to closely follow the editing guide before changing the "portal index" into the "featured articles" section.