World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) Files
Comments
-
Conspiracy theory to make allegations like that based on a lack of evidence.
2 -
Unclear what Iran has to do with this.
0 -
What? Ask OEJ, he brought up Iran and how they are progressive on trans issues and that's what I was responding to. I'm just in the habit of not quoting the long posts.
3 -
I was wondering alright how you missed the point so badly, but I figured the fault was mine rather than yours.
It was simply in response to the fact that it seemed unusual to the poster that I was responding to that there has been an increase in the amount of young girls questioning their gender identity. It’s really not that unusual considering historically (and even the small-scale study CatFromHue provides is evidence of it), studies only included boys and men. Girls and women just weren’t even considered:
https://amp.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/nov/13/the-female-problem-male-bias-in-medical-trials
Ideas such as homosexuality and transsexualism were suppressed - homosexual acts among men being made illegal, and transsexualism was considered to be only practiced among men who wanted to be women, ie - they presented no threat to social order. Greater visibility and equality for women led to greater visibility of women who were homosexual and girls who were questioning their gender identity.
The President of Iran can only make the claim that homosexuality doesn’t exist in Iran because as I pointed out, and you repeated - they force homosexuals to undergo sex reassignment surgery - surgery doesn’t alter their sexual orientation, it’s just a really crude means of maintaining social order, allowing Iranian rulers to pretend that homosexuality doesn’t exist, and they’re ‘progressive’ in terms of transgender healthcare, having forced surgeries on homosexuals since the ‘80’s.
0 -
Join Date:Posts: 18007
No I'm reading what you said.
That graph I posted comes from
which is from 2018 which is just before the scandal there broke. It clearly shows that there's much more than just 15% being referred from GIDs to the endocrinology unit for blockers. At this time they, GIDS, were saying they were more thorough in their assessments than in America but they were still somewhat working to the WPATH guidelines.
From the paper
"Following psychosocial assessment at the GIDS, on average 38%–40% of all clients attend the joint endocrine clinics, although this varies across the age range. Figure 2 highlights the age at which young people were referred to the GIDS, not the age at which they were referred to endocrinology (at a mean age of 14.4 years). The percentage referred at age 16 or 17 years is lower as many transition then to adult services to access physical treatment directly."
Even that 38-40% stat is misleading is it's the stat for all clients, not all clients at an age suitable for blockers. It includes U10's who more than likely will be too young for blockers and 16/17 year olds who more than likely will be too old for them.
2 -
Advertisement
-
The huge increase in self identified transgenderism is undoubtedly because in the past people did not feel safe identify as transgender and so lived in the closet for most of their lives. The difference is that we are now a more liberal and accepting society.
That might be true to an extent, but if it was the whole story then you wouldn't see the huge increase mostly among girls and teenage girls specifically. "Contagion" is obviously a provocative term but something is going on. Take a look at this paragraph from an article in today's New York Times (the article is not about trans)
Because alarm over what social media is doing to kids is broad and bipartisan, the social psychologist Jonathan Haidt is pushing on an open door with his important new book, “The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood Is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness.” The shift in kids’ energy and attention from the physical world to the virtual one, Haidt shows, has been catastrophic, especially for girls.
and
In “The Anxious Generation,” Haidt argues that while kids are under-protected on the internet, they’re over-protected in the real world, and that these two trends work in tandem. For a whole host of reasons — parental fear, overzealous child welfare departments, car-centric city planning — kids generally have a lot less freedom and independence than their parents did. Sitting at home in front of screens may keep them safe from certain physical harms, but it leaves them more vulnerable to psychological ones.
It is unconscionable to just be giving into teenagers demands for medication without considerable assessment first to see if the cause of their dysphoria lies elsewhere
3 -
To your last statement - that is not what happens so it's a straw man argument.
There is always a huge amount of hysteria with any new technology, the same types of fears were spread by conservative thinkers when books became cheap and widley available, the same for TV and the same for heavy metal music.
The mental health issues were always there - they just went undiagnosed and untreated - leading to an epademic of drunks and spousal abuse.
There is a fear of the future biologically built into some people and we should be vary wary of listening to their latest campaign of hysterical fear mongering.
1 -
That might be true to an extent, but if it was the whole story then you wouldn't see the huge increase mostly among girls and teenage girls specifically. "Contagion" is obviously a provocative term but something is going on. Take a look at this paragraph from an article in today's New York Times (the article is not about trans)
It’s very true though, and it’s the very reason why there is a huge increase among girls and indeed teenage girls specifically. It’s also the reason why the idea of ‘social contagion’ is proposed because not only does the idea of ‘social contagion’ offer convenient justification for parental anxieties about children and social media, it also has the double-effect of claiming social media is responsible for social ills.
Neither of which is actually true, it’s simply a fact that diagnostic criteria have improved, and because of increased awareness - parents, teachers, other adults in positions of authority with regard to children, and children themselves, are becoming more aware of issues which were once limited more locally. The author of that article characterising Jonathan Haidt’s new book as ‘important’ is not surprising either, given that it agrees with her already held views. I haven’t read it yet, but it’s likely to be about as ‘important‘ as his previous works (this post is not about trans):
1 -
It clearly shows that there's much more than just 15% being referred from GIDs to the endocrinology unit for blockers.
…
Even that 38-40% stat is misleading is it's the stat for all clients, not all clients at an age suitable for blockers. It includes U10's who more than likely will be too young for blockers and 16/17 year olds who more than likely will be too old for them.
The stat isn’t misleading, because as you rightly point out it’s the stat for all clients, not all clients at an age suitable for puberty blockers, because not all clients are referred to endocrinology clinics for the administration of puberty blockers. The paper further down gives a bit more clarity on client profiles and the other reasons for their referrals to endocrinology clinics, particularly in patients pre-puberty:
Pubertal status
It is a requirement, according to the Endocrine Society and WPATH guidelines and UK service specifications, that a young person has commenced puberty before any intervention is agreed, as the GD may resolve once puberty commences.4 5 Figure 2 demonstrates the low absolute numbers and proportion of prepubertal children with persistent GD. Hence a clinical examination for pubertal staging is required unless confirmed as in the completing phase (eg, postmenarche from history). The majority of referrals to the GIDS and when referred on to the joint endocrine clinics in Leeds and London are postpubertal, two-thirds being over 15 years of age.
Karyotype
Initially the approach with GD was similar to that for disorder of sex development, with a karyotype being routinely requested. An audit of UK clinics from 2013 to 2015 (Table 1) revealed no differences from cytogenetic surveys of the UK newborn population and elsewhere.10 11 Therefore, routine karyotyping of a child or adolescent with GD is not required unless any specific clinical features determine this to be necessary.
I’m not going to quibble over when the scandal broke, but the first rumblings of it in the media were in 2015, and safe to assume that if former trustees, management and staff at the clinic are to be believed, internal disputes about all sorts, and not just treatment, were going on a long time before that, which is relevant because of this particular policy paper written in 2016. It refers to a number of sources, including the WPATH 7 guidelines, which if you’ll remember from earlier, in 2022 the NHS had said they’d moved away from 5 years previously, because they had:
I’m not going to quibble over a percentage point either, but the 15%, or the 85% figures may also be coming from the only reliable data that the Tavistock had available for 2020:
The service’s data suggests only 16% of the people discharged from Gids in 2019-20 were referred to the endocrinology clinics that assess their suitability for hormone blockers.
Of that 16%, 96% were prescribed blockers and 55% went on to be approved for gender-affirming hormones while at Gids – young people must have taken blockers for about a year, and also be around the age of 16, before they can be assessed for these.
0 -
I don't know much about Jonathan Haidt, but it's interesting from his wikipedia profile, that he charts a middle path in US politics, and is an atheist from a Jewish background. So, he doesn't fit the usual "far-right" transphobic mould. Consequently, the messenger shooting above is more muted than it might otherwise be 😊
I don't think it's a credible position to hold that social media activity and the internet in general could be at the root cause of much teenage mental health problems, but not at all the cause of gender dysphoria in any cases, specially when there is plenty of evidence of websites where questioning teens can find ready made answers to the "assessment" questions from doctors who are a lot less thorough than the NGS doctors here. There was even an article in the Irish Times a while back from a young person who transitioned (arguably successfully) who confirmed the same. Assessment needs to be more than the box ticking exercise that GIDS apparently became and which the likes of GenderGP provides.
Here's another quote from that article:
Female adolescence was nightmarish enough before smartphones, but apps like Instagram and TikTok have put popularity contests and unrealistic beauty standards into hyperdrive. (Boys, by contrast, have more problems linked to overuse of video games and porn.) The studies Haidt cites — as well as the ones he debunks — should put to bed the notion that concern over kids and phones is just a modern moral panic akin to previous generations’ hand-wringing over radio, comic books and television.
1 -
Advertisement
-
It was less about shooting Jonathan Haidt, he’s not the messenger, Michelle Goldberg is, and she’s written volumes of articles in the NYT about transgenderism, which makes the article you’re quoting from, a departure in that respect. My comments regarding the content or quality of Jonathan Haidt’s work was just that - comments about his work, though as you’ve done - I would recommend anyone who hasn’t, should do their due diligence on the background of any author of any works to inform context.
I don’t think that’s a credible position to hold either, particularly as the fundamental premise of the argument is fundamentally flawed, but that’s the argument being alluded to in the article, and indeed it is the argument being put forward in Haidt’s previous works, and in Douglas Murray’s ‘Strange Death of Europe’, and in Abigail Shrier’s ‘Bad Therapy: Why the kids aren’t growing up’, and her previous work ‘Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters’, available in downloadable PDF format on the Internet without payment, if you know where to look 😬
Far something alright, not right, just rhymes with it… or far-fetched.
The NGS doctors (and Professor) are no more or less thorough than they are anywhere else, the issue is indeed one of who has greater authority to make decisions about healthcare as it applies within the public healthcare system, and as it applies to the individual. Teenage girls are unlikely to be the target audience for service providers in the private healthcare industry, rather their parents more so, who are more likely to have the financial means to afford their services.
The quote from the article isn’t anything significant on its own, but the next paragraph certainly provides greater context:
But I suspect that many readers won’t need convincing. The question in our politics is less whether these ubiquitous new technologies are causing widespread psychological damage than what can be done about it.
Validating your reader’s beliefs is probably the best way to have them consider your work is important, it’s more effective in adults than it is in children, who are notoriously skeptical (and you just know there are studies to prove it 😁). It means the author doesn’t have to establish any truth to the claim that ubiquitous new technologies are causing widespread psychological damage. In much the same manner as she cites Jonathan Haidt’s citation and debunking of studies which he has chosen, it’s easy to do that with there being no shortage of studies produced in Academia in the social sciences based upon American society and culture in particular, and that too is an issue in itself:
0 -
Mermaids has been under investigation by the charity commission since late 2022. I believe the investigation was started over them providing physically harmful breast binders to young girls without parental consent, but the scope of the investigation has since broadened. No word on when the investigation will be completed.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ~C.S. Lewis
1 -
Good to know that their lesbophobia is being called out finally. Thank you!
0 -
Good. "Breast ironing" is a cultural practice that is acknowledged as physically harmful. Here you go though young girl, have a binder, the same thing but socially acceptable (with some people) for some reason 🤔. Why are so many of these organisations seemingly obsessed with beginning interventions on children without their parents knowledge or consent? Totally not creepy
10 -
Part of the issue with the whole movement is that when you describe the reality of the extreme, harmful things that TRAs want to be considered standard “care” from the second anyone over two with the ability to communicate expresses a “gender identity” that might be able to squeeze under the “trans” umbrella- you sound like a crazy person. People literally cannot believe anyone would advocate for the things you’re saying.
Fortunately, true believers lack discernment and the ability to interrogate their own beliefs, so there’s plenty of evidence of them saying all manner of crazy **** publicly.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ~C.S. Lewis
7 -
It was less about shooting Jonathan Haidt, he’s not the messenger, Michelle Goldberg is, and she’s written volumes of articles in the NYT about transgenderism, which makes the article you’re quoting from, a departure in that respect. My comments regarding the content or quality of Jonathan Haidt’s work was just that - comments about his work, though as you’ve done - I would recommend anyone who hasn’t, should do their due diligence on the background of any author of any works to inform context.
I don’t think that’s a credible position to hold either, particularly as the fundamental premise of the argument is fundamentally flawed, but that’s the argument being alluded to in the article, and indeed it is the argument being put forward in Haidt’s previous works, and in Douglas Murray’s ‘Strange Death of Europe’, and in Abigail Shrier’s ‘Bad Therapy: Why the kids aren’t growing up’, and her previous work ‘Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters’, available in downloadable PDF format on the Internet without payment, if you know where to look 😬
Far something alright, not right, just rhymes with it… or far-fetched.
The NGS doctors (and Professor) are no more or less thorough than they are anywhere else, the issue is indeed one of who has greater authority to make decisions about healthcare as it applies within the public healthcare system, and as it applies to the individual. Teenage girls are unlikely to be the target audience for service providers in the private healthcare industry, rather their parents more so, who are more likely to have the financial means to afford their services.
The quote from the article isn’t anything significant on its own, but the next paragraph certainly provides greater context:
But I suspect that many readers won’t need convincing. The question in our politics is less whether these ubiquitous new technologies are causing widespread psychological damage than what can be done about it.
Validating your reader’s beliefs is probably the best way to have them consider your work is important, it’s more effective in adults than it is in children, who are notoriously skeptical (and you just know there are studies to prove it 😁). It means the author doesn’t have to establish any truth to the claim that ubiquitous new technologies are causing widespread psychological damage. In much the same manner as she cites Jonathan Haidt’s citation and debunking of studies which he has chosen, it’s easy to do that with there being no shortage of studies produced in Academia in the social sciences based upon American society and culture in particular, and that too is an issue in itself.
0 -
It was less about shooting Jonathan Haidt, he’s not the messenger, Michelle Goldberg is, and she’s written volumes of articles in the NYT about transgenderism, which makes the article you’re quoting from, a departure in that respect. My comments regarding the content or quality of Jonathan Haidt’s work was just that - comments about his work, though as you’ve done - I would recommend anyone who hasn’t, should do their due diligence on the background of any author of any works to inform context.
I don’t think that’s a credible position to hold either, particularly as the fundamental premise of the argument is fundamentally flawed, but that’s the argument being alluded to in the article, and indeed it is the argument being put forward in Haidt’s previous works, and in Douglas Murray’s ‘Strange Death of Europe’, and in Abigail Shrier’s ‘Bad Therapy: Why the kids aren’t growing up’, and her previous work ‘Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters’, available in downloadable PDF format on the Internet without payment, if you know where to look 😬
Far something alright, not right, just rhymes with it…
The NGS doctors (and Professor) are no more or less thorough than they are anywhere else, the issue is indeed one of who has greater authority to make decisions about healthcare as it applies within the public healthcare system, and as it applies to the individual, though I wouldn’t accuse you of shooting the messenger when it comes to taking aim at private service providers operating surreptitiously like GenderGP, even if young people are far less likely to be interacting with them on social media and it’s far more likely to be their parents doing so.
You missed the next paragraph underneath the one you quoted which provides better context for the previous one:
But I suspect that many readers won’t need convincing. The question in our politics is less whether these ubiquitous new technologies are causing widespread psychological damage than what can be done about it.
Validating her reader’s opinions means she doesn’t have to convince them that ubiquitous new technologies are indeed causing widespread psychological damage, as though that’s an established fact, when in reality it simply is not, no matter how many studies Johnathan Haidt produces for the purposes of citing or debunking them. It’s not as though they’re in short supply in Academia and the social sciences, in English, particularly in the US, where the majority of these studies are produced, which is a bit of an issue in itself:
0 -
It was less about shooting Jonathan Haidt, he’s not the messenger, Michelle Goldberg is, and she’s written volumes of articles in the NYT about transgenderism, which makes the article you’re quoting from, a departure in that respect. My comments regarding the content or quality of Jonathan Haidt’s work was just that - comments about his work, though as you’ve done - I would recommend anyone who hasn’t, should do their due diligence on the background of any author of any works to inform context.
I don’t think that’s a credible position to hold either, particularly as the fundamental premise of the argument is fundamentally flawed, but that’s the argument being alluded to in the article, and indeed it is the argument being put forward in Haidt’s previous works, and in Douglas Murray’s ‘Strange Death of Europe’, and in Abigail Shrier’s ‘Bad Therapy: Why the kids aren’t growing up’, and her previous work ‘Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters’, available in downloadable PDF format on the Internet without payment, if you know where to look 😬
Far something alright, not right, just rhymes with it… or far-fetched.
The NGS doctors (and Professor) are no more or less thorough than they are anywhere else, the issue is indeed one of who has greater authority to make decisions about healthcare as it applies within the public healthcare system, and as it applies to the individual. Teenage girls are unlikely to be the target audience for service providers in the private healthcare industry, rather their parents more so, who are more likely to have the financial means to afford their services.
The quote from the article isn’t anything significant on its own, but the next paragraph certainly provides greater context:
But I suspect that many readers won’t need convincing. The question in our politics is less whether these ubiquitous new technologies are causing widespread psychological damage than what can be done about it.
Validating your reader’s beliefs is probably the best way to have them consider your work is important, it’s more effective in adults than it is in children, who are notoriously skeptical (and you just know there are studies to prove it 😁). It means the author doesn’t have to establish any truth to the claim that ubiquitous new technologies are causing widespread psychological damage. In much the same manner as she cites Jonathan Haidt’s citation and debunking of studies which he has chosen, it’s easy to do that with there being no shortage of studies produced in Academia in the social sciences based upon American society and culture in particular, and that too is an issue in itself:
0 -
Jonathan haidt was on bill Maher last night talking about the damage phones and social media are doing to kids. Knew I recognized the name from somewhere
1 -
Strange to see that post from 19 March reposted three times… don't know what's going on 🤔
1 -
Advertisement
-
It was probably too short to be convincing. 😁
I was just the same - I knew I'd come across his name very recently, but I couldn't remember where, so thanks for that.
A little off topic, but I thought he made a very good argument that the real reason that children's mental health is getting worse is not covid, as so often claimed, but that we have in fact caused that damage in two main steps: the first was when children were suddenly no longer allowed to be out running about all day without parental supervision (something I've said before - but unlike Haidt I put it down, not to US crime waves, as we didn't have those, but to cars. They made the roads and streets far too dangerous for children, so we sacrificed children's freedom to adult freedom. I still think that BTW.)
The second negative change, according to Haidt, was from 2013 on, when children began to have constant access to social media using smartphones and tablets. According to him, the statistics show that "break" occurring from 2013 onwards, and not from 2020.
2 -
I think the deterioration started then but there's no doubt that COVID and lockdowns accelerated things significantly. I was chatting to a therapist who said she and her colleagues can't believe the amount of teens they are seeing now who are just unable to cope with basic, standard life challenges since lockdowns. They have zero resilience. Having said that, social media and being online all the time is so so bad for kids and their mental health and is obviously the main factor.
0 -
I've heard the car argument before and it makes a lot of sense. Cars have destroyed urban and shared spaces including housing estates.
But a few years before I was born were the most dangerous on Irish roads; in 1972 we killed 640 pedestrians including my never met uncle as he cycled home.
In that year we killed 150 pedestrians.
The roads were really **** dangerous but we still didn't give a thought to letting kids walk/cycle wherever they wanted. There was no shortage of sexual predators either. As a ten year old I used to cycle home in the dark on a regional road after soccer training, ditto all my siblings. You would probably be reported to Tusla today for allowing that.
Less developed economies are more relaxed/accepting about accidental death.
We are too vigilant now but it's not a trivial one to solve.
Essentially more relaxed parenting gives their kids more freedom, teaches risk assessing etc and generally stands to them for life; but a few will die that might not otherwise.
I remember my father retired when I was 16 and headed off to USA with my mother for 3 weeks to visit 3 of my siblings and left me to run the dairy farm on my own.
As a wise man said to be me when I became a father; good parenting is the art of letting go.
As for COVID we really let down our kids. I remember in May 2020 hearing an eating disorder charity woman for cork saying calls were were up 50% but we kept going.
2 -
Listening to lefties across the media today going on about a 'moral panic culture war' when it is exactly the gender critics who are responsible for there ever being a review of UK gender services in the first place. It was hardly Mermaids who insisted on a investigation into the suitability of puberty blockers or hormone treatments for teenagers.
Same people misrepresenting the comments of Cass as regards the issue being 'toxic' when Cass was referring to the way left wing academic and trans alllies treated the gender critics. They were the toxic one's to begin with, but you wouldn't expect anything less from radical leftists with their high-minded irrational convictions.
5 -
To quote another social media user, there are people with PhDs and scientific expertise agreeing with the Cass Report and pink haired anime lovers with pronouns in their bio disagreeing with it.
4 -
I think it is worth pointing out that there absolutely is a "culture war" around this issue and there are many, many people using it for malfeasance.
The problem certain fringe elements have (and they are fringe despite their dominance online) is that they are bemoaning the culture war but contributing strongly to it by castigating anyone who even remotely disagrees with them as all on the side of trans-genocidal maniacs.
4 -
I think it is worth pointing out that there absolutely is a "culture
war" around this issue and there are many, many people using it for
malfeasance.I couldn't disagree more. I don't agree that trans related issues come under the heading of Culture Wars and I especially don't know how anyone could describe disagreements over puberty blockers could be described as a culture war issue. It's a medical issue.
When the gay marriage debate was ongoing was all that just a culture war as well? There is a thread here about multiculturalism, it's literally about culture. Would anyone describe that as the culture war issue? No.
The Culture War term came to be when all that woke stuff kicked off, things like only Jewish people should play Jewish characters in movies, complains that white westerners were 'appropriating' Jamaican hairstyles, and all that. That's what the cultures wars are, things much more trivial than the trans issue.
The whole point then of people saying oh that trans stuff is just a culture wars thing was an attempt to belittle the gender critics. Not really an argument to be making today of all days when the gender critics have been vindicated.
0 -
Some people aren't taking the Cass report well but St JK is fighting the good fight.
4 -
I couldn't disagree more. I don't agree that trans related issues come under the heading of Culture Wars and I especially don't know how anyone could describe disagreements over puberty blockers could be described as a culture war issue. It's a medical issue.
The issues extend far beyond the use of puberty blockers, which I agree should be treated with the seriousness and rigour all medical decisions should be treated with. I will admit the greatest platform for this is in America, but as with all things American it seeps into the consciousness of the whole Western world. Banning all trans care, as is happening in some States, is the very definition of culture wars and politicians inserting themselves into medical decisions. There is also clearly an element of panic that is being pushed forth as opposed to reasoned discussion. And also while I think many of the issues are of high importance, they are not of high prevalence, which is not something you would guess from much of the rhetoric around it.
To me I don't know how you could say, specifically in the US at least, that it is not being driven deliberately as a wedge issue. Unless you think they genuinely care about at-risk youth, which would be flying in the face of almost every other action they take. And there are elements of that in UK/I also. I guess you have a very different definition of culture wars from me in this case.
2 -
Advertisement
-
I don't think WPATH will be in the next program for government somehow …
The World Professional Association of
Transgender Healthcare (WPATH) has been
highly influential in directing international
practice, although its guidelines were found
by the University of York appraisal process
to lack developmental rigour.0
