World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) Files

MilkyToast

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122010486#Comment_122010486

I've never once used the word mythical about anyone's gender identity.

The poster is referring to my earlier post, which I stand by. There is no more evidence that a person has a 'gender identity' than there is that they have a soul. No more evidence that their gender identity is what they tell you it is than that my schizophrenic uncle really IS hearing those voices. And the more time passes, the longer people remain quiet and cowed by an activist cohort that is known to be aggressive and violent, the less evidence there is that 'gender identity' is anything other than people describing personality.

I'm not going to dictate what anyone else believes or says - I'll leave that to the trans rights activists - but I will point out that there is now a clear and growing body of evidence that the way that children expressing gender confusion have been treated with medications, social transition and hormones has caused harm, and that telling children that they can literally change sex (which is what children who trust adults think when they're told that someone can be eg. born male but end up a woman) is going to make gender confusion more likely, especially in autistic kids who struggle in any case with matters of identity and the body, for children in state care who don't have parents to tell them their teacher is talking shíte, children who will be same-sex attracted but do not yet have the sexuality to understand what that is, and for other vulnerable groups of kids.

We would never tell a person with anorexia that yes, they are fat.

We would never tell a person with schizophrenia that yes, the voices are real.

We should never tell a child with confusion around how sex is related (and not) to the socially-constructed, ever-shifting concept of gender (whether behaviour, roles or appearance) that yes, there is something wrong with their body.

People can do with that increasingly obvious information what they will, and on their own conscience be it.

plodder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122012641#Comment_122012641

Let's talk about John Money for a minute, because you keep bringing him up. The vast majority of children don't question their gender. They see no difference between gender and sex. There are some innate differences between the sexes (call them gender differences if you want). Money's most notorious experiment was on David Reimer. This was not on a gender questioning child. It was a baby who in all probability would have grown up as a non-questioning male. Because of a botched circumcision Money convinced his parents to raise him as a girl, believing that sex/gender is malleable, but failed with tragic results. I think we're both agreed on that.

But, none of the above proves that a gender identity different from sex in a four year old gender questioning child, is necessarily fixed for life. It might sometimes be. It might have been for people you met, but there's no evidence that it always is, especially now we have a new cohort of gender questioning, female teenagers, some claiming against the evidence of parents to always having been questioning.

Public policy decisions can't be based on faith. They have to be based on evidence. So, the cavalier attitude towards providing the data to answer these questions can't be (and isn't being) tolerated.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122013031#Comment_122013031

When you said let’s talk about Money for a minute, I thought ‘cool’, but then you didn’t even spend a minute talking about Money before you went on to bring up his most infamous case. You’re right that I do keep bringing him up, and Harry Benjamin, and not for the sheer fcukery of it, but because both of them, before they developed an interest in transexuals, practiced on patients who were intersex, and imagined their treatment of intersex patients could translate and be applied to transsexuals:

By the mid-1960s, Money’s interest had turned to transsexualism and the possibility of surgical treatment: between 1964 and 1967 he was part of a research team led by Harry Benjamin (and including Ruth Rae Doorbar, Richard Green, Henry Guze, Herbert Kupperman, Wardell Pomeroy, and Leo Wollman), whose study of transsexualism was funded by the Erickson Educational  Foundation. The latter had been established in 1964 by the wealthy trans man and patient of Benjamin’s, Reed Erickson. Research undertaken by the group was integral to the official establishment of the Johns Hopkins Gender Identity Clinic (in July 1966) as well as to the formation of the Harry Benjamin Foundation (in 1967). Moreover, according to Benjamin, Money “was probably more responsible than any other individual for the decision that such an august institution as Johns Hopkins Hospital would . . . endorse sex-altering surgery in suitable subjects,” a practice for which, at the time, there was little support among medical professionals. Money also served on the advisory board of the Harry Benjamin Foundation, which regularly referred patients to Hopkins, ensuring a client base for the treatments he was developing. However, Money later expressed disappointment that the Gender Identity Clinic, whose name he professed to have inspired, did not “become a center for manifold syndromes related to gender identity,” and remained focused on transsexualism until its closure in 1979.

https://www.salon.com/2015/01/04/pervert_or_sexual_libertarian_meet_john_money_the_father_of_fology/

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Harry-Benjamin

There’s no question that David Reimer was in any way uncertain about his innate gender identity or sex, what caused the incongruity was the fact that he had been deliberately raised as the opposite sex, something which he knew innately he was not (because remember Money had told his parents to keep this information from him), and because Reimer was one of a set of twin brothers, they were the gold standard candidates for his experiments. Patients who were naturally intersex and were not twins, were not nearly as attractive as test subjects for his theories (and he had many, many theories).

This was at a time when the ‘watchful waiting’ approach was standard practice, the practice which is being put forth for consideration now, which it is known from past experience, provides evidence that it was as ineffective then as it is today, which is why the social model as opposed to the medical model, is more widely accepted as effective in the treatment of distress caused by gender incongruence. This is why the WHO reclassified gender identity disorder as it was known then, as no longer a disorder, but a condition under sexual health. That’s their public policy (more on that in a minute). This is the public policy of The Endocrine Society for example: https://www.endocrine.org/advocacy/position-statements/transgender-health

I don’t think what you’ve acknowledged in your first paragraph though was ever meant to prove that a gender identity different from sex in a child is necessarily fixed for life. I know you stipulate a ‘gender questioning child’, but they only become a gender questioning child if they’re questioning their gender. Most of the time they’re certain of it, and it’s their parents who have an issue with their child’s self-identification. Fixed for life though? Surely that standard of proof you’re expecting then applies to all children, questioning or otherwise?

It does, and because it does, again there are reams and reams of evidence in child development and psychology to support the observation that children begin developing their own gender identity and and sense of self from 18 months, and have formed a stable identity by about 48 months, or four years, and because it’s a continuing process in childhood, their sense of identity only becomes even more stable as they progress, so that by the time they are reaching puberty, that’s when the trouble really kicks off, because now they’re expected to grow up, and that can go either of two ways - smoothly, which it does in most children, or an absolute nightmare where children are forced to confront their parents with information that they imagined they would be able to keep from their parents. They have a sense from having grown up with their parents whether their parents will be receptive to the idea. More times parents simply aren’t, and that’s why children who don’t exhibit a smooth transition from childhood into adulthood and make their parents lives hell, they’re the most likely cohort to be kicked out of their homes by their parents:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6807292/

Maybe you’re part of an unusual cohort whose teenage children tell them everything, I don’t know. That’s different from what I tell my own son when he wants to tell me anything, I tell him I don’t want to know. It’s easier on both of us that way, saves us both a headache because he’ll tell me shìt that I’d rather not have known and I’d rather he hadn’t told me. I’m aware that other parents take different approaches to raising their children like wanting to be their children’s best friend, or helicopter parents (I’m sure you’re familiar with the phenomenon).

The fact that there are a cohort of teenage girls who tell their parents what their parents don’t want to hear is not new. The fact that their parents deny all knowledge of it, or are surprised by this new information that their daughters have imposed upon them which the parents were previously unaware of, is not new either. Their daughters either kept it from their parents, or their parents were unintentionally oblivious (as opposed to parents like myself who wish to remain purposefully oblivious to their teenage childs dilemmas).

When did the change in the approach to public policy come about anyway? Apart from the obvious and entirely predictable retort that I must have been oblivious to it, I’m not aware of any change in approach to public policy where it’s been decided that public policy will now be based upon evidence. Quite the contrary; it is as it’s always been, and remains so - wing the fcuk out of it, pray for a miracle if one is that way inclined, and hope for the best that it works out! Because if one were to examine the evidence of how public policy is developed, faith has always played a crucial role in it’s development. Certainly, stakeholders with a vested interest in the outcomes will provide supporting evidence from their own perspectives (as noted by Cass in the report, with ne’er even a hint of tongue-in-cheek irony), in support of the direction they imagine is the best way forward for everyone, but they generally tend to miss out on (or are genuinely oblivious to) the people for whom their proposed public policy does not work for, or does not meet their needs and expectations of what to expect from a public service provider. When it comes to an organisation like the NHS, or the HSE, that has never been more true than even it was in the past:

https://archive.ph/aNJF9

MilkyToast

Interesting excerpt from Dr. Cass’ review about how The Endocrine Society and WPATH came to their “guidelines” through circular referencing, leading to the guidelines available for the last many years being based on poor or misrepresented evidence.

MilkyToast

Also worth noting that the UN special rapporteur on violence against women and girls has expressed concern over the one-sided activist nature of a committee the WHO has set up to discuss guidelines for “transgender healthcare”.

https://amp.theguardian.com/society/2024/jan/09/un-envoy-criticises-one-sided-who-approach-trans-health-guidelines

“The Clinical Advisory Network on Sex and Gender, a network of clinicians mainly in the UK and Ireland looking at the debate over sex and gender in healthcare, questioned why the WHO appeared to be promoting gender-affirming care as always the best approach. “There are no robust randomised-controlled trials supporting gender-affirming medical and surgical interventions, and therefore there are no studies which tell us about the efficacy of these interventions, in children or adults,” the organisation said in a statement.”

A testament to the odd religious nature of our species that this house of cards has so many willing defenders prepared to shield it from the slight breeze required to bring it down.

MilkyToast

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122012410#Comment_122012410

Under fresh and understandably furious scrutiny, all clinics have now agreed to cooperate with inquiries.

I imagine they realised they were staring down a commons ready to force the issue. It’s amazing what a little light can to to a dark corner. Much scurrying.

Vote4Squirrels

This is a fascinating read:

https://x.com/jebadoo2/status/1779121381654810756?s=46

It is a breakdown of the Cass Review’s key points focusing on the denial of Ruth Hunt of Stonewell that they did nothing wrong.

How did Stonewall get from a respected organisation to actively campaigning against gay men and women, and enacting policies to reduce their number?? Surely they must be disbanded now and their pernicious influence on “EDI” programme and particularly schools and health be removed.

Mermaids are also now backpedaling and should be investigated for child endangerment.

concerned_tenant

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122017037#Comment_122017037

Because it is a well-funded organization.

After the passage of gay marriage and so on and the effective equality that was finally established, they had to rebrand and find a new purpose — there's a lot of funds that cannot go to waste and a lot of careers, too — and so they decided to hitch their wagon to this cause.

This is nothing new either.

It's very common for well-funded organizations to shift perspective once their primary goal has been achieved, even if the new goal is somehow contradictory to the original goal to begin with.

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122003283#Comment_122003283

Indeed.

Isn't it telling that Hilary Cass has links to Ron DeSantis.

https://twitter.com/sullivansa1/status/1778774276818030736?t=wJBvI5ZKL72iNxvrixiT4g&s=19

Annasopra

Deleted

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122006763#Comment_122006763

24 year olds are children?

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122007668#Comment_122007668

No that's not factual. Numerous studies show the rate of trans adolescent detransitioning is 2% to 5%

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122017244#Comment_122017244

The brain is not fully mature until the mid to late twenties. So, mentally, yes, that's true.

The brain finishes developing and maturing in the mid-to-late 20s. The part of the brain behind the forehead, called the prefrontal cortex, is one of the last parts to mature. This area is responsible for skills like planning, prioritizing, and making good decisions.

https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/the-teen-brain-7-things-to-know

The legal age at which society chooses to establish legal adulthood is a legal artefact which varies wildly, from 10 in some countries to 21, and in the past even 30 in some cases. It doesn't correspond to anything much in physiological terms.

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122017258#Comment_122017258

So is that adolescents who have received puberty blockers or all adolescents suffering from gender dysphoria?

And is it from one of the studies that the Cass report found were of too poor quality to be able to be used?

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122017320#Comment_122017320

Oh no. Cass didn't use many academic studies purely because of ideological reasons. I mean you can see that when she is in contact with Christian fundamentalism in the USA.

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122012529#Comment_122012529

You're right that isn't relevant and is evidence of nothing

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122016888#Comment_122016888

Cass can't be taken seriously when this is part of who she cites

https://twitter.com/ErinInTheMorn/status/1778957448792945028?t=GZqNnXZEi9rHNLoRxi90-w&s=19

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122017299#Comment_122017299

The logical conclusion then is banning voting, alcohol, driving, abortion etc for all under 25s

ceadaoin.

Wait, I though the cass report was a positive thing for transgender people and it's totally being misrepresented by transphobes to prove a point? Now it's yet another example of a woman influenced by fabled "right wing american Christian fundamentalists". Guess it takes a while to get the party line coordinated (and the most tenuous of links dug up), but what a shock that it turns out to be a silly woman turned to the dark side by the big bad guy du jour. Why won't women just be nice and stop being so easily influenced, it's not like she's qualified or anything 🙄

MilkyToast

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122017219#Comment_122017219

It's not strange at all that someone looking into this issue sought opinion from a broad range of people who have knowledge about it, including some that Annasopra of boards.ie disagrees with politically, no.

Especially when that person is a paediatrician with over 30 years' experience, a background in bioethics, and a collaborative history with people from all over the world when it comes to "gender" medicine.

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122017174#Comment_122017174

Yeah. Nothing compared to anti gender funding

https://www.epfweb.org/node/837

• Report identifies USD707.2 million in anti-gender funding over the 2009–2018 period originating from the United States, the Russian Federation and Europe.
• Annual anti-gender spending in Europe has increased by a factor of four starting from USD22.2 million in 2009 to reach USD96 million in 2018.
• Largest European-based anti-gender funders include actors in France, Italy, Germany, Spain and Poland.
• Links to anti-abortion initiatives in France, Italy, Poland, Slovakia, Spain and at EU level.
• Links to anti-gay marriage movements in Austria, Croatia, France, Germany, Finland, Italy, Slovakia and Romania.

MilkyToast

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122017379#Comment_122017379

Interesting, isn't it? I predicted to my coven that the TRAs would have the narrative set by Friday, so I'm out a pack of peppermint tea now that they're still flailing around.

eeepaulo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122017379#Comment_122017379

It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

MilkyToast

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122017373#Comment_122017373

I wonder, did Erin Reed, one of the more hysterical American trans activists, take the time to look at the video that was linked as a resource in the Cass report?

Or did Erin just assume that Erin's army of midwit followers would take Erin's explanation as gospel, much the way they take Erin's claim to be a woman?

Did you go to the video, Anna, before you decided that an eminent paediatrician with decades of experience and an OBE for services to child health "can't be taken seriously"?

Because I did. Here it is for everyone else's benefit:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HQBfuV3V98

And there you have the strength of the TRA argument against the findings of the Cass review - that a highly experienced, much awarded, eminent expert in paediatric medicine is "not to be taken seriously" because, in the course of conducting a review into the Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS), she took the dastardly and underhanded step of… including an unedited, uncut video of a full presentation given by the director of GIDS from a symposium held by an organisation that touts itself as the be-all-end-all in trans healthcare (and was previously taken seriously).

Wow. You really stuck it to her.

I'm sorry you don't like that particular YouTube channel, but this guilt-by-association nonsense has lost its luster. It is simply not going to be the case - ever - that TRAs can refuse to cooperate with a government-ordered review of an area of children's medicine, and then object to all evidence that is gathered on the basis that it was hosted by a YouTube channel made by someone whose dad once had dinner with the guy who sold Ron DeSantis in Florida his shoe lifts - and be taken seriously.

And they are just going to have to reconcile themselves with that.

MilkyToast

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122017376#Comment_122017376

No. The logical conclusion would be looking at the potential consequences of each issue in its own right and making an issue-by-issue assessment of the most ethical and workable age of access for each one, based on the available evidence.

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122017529#Comment_122017529

Nah can't be doing with that - it has to be one extreme or t'other. No sensible compromises allowed! 😕

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122017373#Comment_122017373

So Dr Polly Carmichael, former director of GIDS until it was closed down precisely because it was NOT sufficiently sceptical of trans activists, is now allegedly an anti trans right wing religious freak?? Who is left to be trusted then??

Vote4Squirrels

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122017569#Comment_122017569

I’ve read some of the “responses” to this near 400 page report and if any of the ideological based responses (those posted earlier from Twitter for example) have actually read more than 3 I will eat my hat.

MilkyToast

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122017590#Comment_122017590

Unfortunately, Christopher Hitchens was wrong when he said "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence".

This entire ideology was, is, and will continue to be, asserted without evidence. And it turns out that if you are prepared to act disingenuously, launder fake evidence, tell bare-faced lies publicly, and accuse anyone who notices of being a genocidal bigoted fascist, it actually requires a quite lot of evidence before you're dismissed.

But dismissed you'll be, in the end.

concerned_tenant

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122017219#Comment_122017219

I trust the word of a decades-experienced paediatrician with a background in this area, more than any ill-informed activist with an agenda to push.

It's funny how the same people who say "trust the science", when it comes to climate change, suddenly decide not to trust the science when it disagrees with their ideological belief.

How convenient.

It doesn't matter whether Cass met the Pope or Kim Jong-Un; the validity of her research stands independently from anyone she met, at any time.

What you are attempting to do is to smear Cass by association, hoping that somehow invalidates her research.

Of course, that would be logically fallacious but it is nonetheless pushed in the hope that it works:

When it is an attempt to win favor by exploiting the audience's preexisting spite or disdain for something else, it is called guilt by association or an appeal to spite (Latin: argumentum ad odium). Guilt by association is similar to ad hominem arguments which attack the speaker rather than addressing the claims, but in this case the ill feeling is not created by the argument; it already exists.

But nobody will fall for that tactic, thankfully.