World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) Files

CatFromHue

What these files have uncovered really shouldn't be viewed as trans bashing. It's actually the opposite as it points out where healthcare isn't at the standard required for anyone.

One of the biggest, and valid, criticism of the standards of care is that they're not evidence based. Here we have documents showing that the WPATH, who wrote the document, know it's not evidence based. They're saying one thing in public but a very different thing in private.

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121860904#Comment_121860904

Thats a weird take that the source of the materials shouldn't be up for debate and should be just accepted at face value without any questioning/analysis/investigating

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121860924#Comment_121860924

What page(s) in the document are you referring to?

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121860874#Comment_121860874

Almost 900 transgender people in Ireland officially changed their gender in less than seven years

The hysteria must be Fruedian in it's nature.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121860924#Comment_121860924

Sounds like it just argues a negative and appeals to ignorance (logical fallacy)

Shoog

Let's be clear here, I went to the twitter post expecting to find a link to the said report so I could review it - but it was missing - huge red flag there.

The twitter post was just click bate outrage.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121860984#Comment_121860984

Libs of TikTok and moms for Liberty level stuff.

chalkitdown1

What is this obsession with transgender people that a certain section of society has?

I'll bet that the vast majority of them have never encountered a trans person in real life, ever, nor has anything a trans person ever done had an affect on their life.

It's a really bizarre obsession.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121861025#Comment_121861025

Where it regards the US: Fear is easier than good policy and rightwing politicians need something to run on to dupe people into voting for them so they have the votes for their favorite hobbyhorse: cutting taxes and regulations for their rich friends or their rich selves.

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121861054#Comment_121861054

Where it regards the US: Fear is easier than good policy

Nail on the head.

I can fully accept lobby groups for Nuclear, fracking, fossil fuel industry, etc. Because at least there something tangible in it for them.

But getting the weak minded whipped into a frenzy over a fraction of a fraction of society to garner votes is beyond insidious and obviously extremely dangerous.

Jack Daw

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121861025#Comment_121861025

Well maybe they see children being exploited and taken advantage of having unnecessary medical treatments and having their heads filled with all sorts of nonsense and they think this isn't a good thing to encourage.Maybe they see how it's effected women's sports, how Barbie Kardashian was allowed to be housed in a women's prison, how children have been given puberty blockers,how language has been changed by health organisations like Birthing person, chest feeding.Maybe they see all the illogical thinking associated with gender ideology as well and think this lack of logic isn't a good thing to be encouraged.

It may not be a big issue however it may become a bigger issue if it isn't nipped in the bud.People see gullible fools falling for this gender ideology nonsense and how it has influenced society already in a small way an want it nipped in the bud before it becomes an even bigger issue.

CatFromHue

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121860931#Comment_121860931

The evidence would say that children and adolescents that age don't understand the decision they're making as they're too young.

Page 4 in the Excerpts section.

Concerning whether is it reasonable to expect children and young adolescents to grasp the effects of “gender-affirming care:”

“[It is] out of their developmental range to understand the extent to which some of these medical interventions are impacting them. They’ll say they understand, but then they’ll say something else that makes you think, oh, they didn’t really understand that they are going to have facial hair.”

Dianne Berg, child psychologist and co-author of the child chapter of WPATH Standards of Care 8

“We’re often explaining these sorts of things to people who haven’t even had biology in high school yet.” Dr. Daniel Metzger, Canadian endocrinologist

On the complexity of discussing fertility preservation with children and adolescents during an internal panel discussion:

“It’s always a good theory that you talk about fertility preservation with a 14-yearold, but I know I’m talking to a blank wall. They’d be like, ew, kids, babies, gross…

“I think now that I follow a lot of kids into their mid-twenties, I’m like, Oh, the dog isn’t doing it for you, is it?” They’re like, ‘No, I just found this wonderful partner, and now want kids…’ So I think, you know, it doesn’t surprise me…

“Most of the kids are nowhere in any kind of a brain space to really talk about [fertility preservation] in a serious way.” Dr Daniel Metzger, Canadian endocrinologist

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121861235#Comment_121861235

Well maybe they see children being exploited and taken advantage of having unnecessary medical treatments and having their heads filled with all sorts of nonsense and they think this isn't a good thing to encourage.

Sounds like you mean religions imposing genital mutilation and religious indoctrination on children. And these lobbying groups love that ****.

It may not be a big issue however it may become a bigger issue if it isn't nipped in the bud.

Like like gender neutral bathrooms - if we don't nip this now, there might be 2, 2.5 gender neutral bathrooms in every house and home!

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121861076#Comment_121861076

We're not in the US. I'm more concerned about women like Sonia Appleby losing their jobs for expressing concerns about child safeguarding, even though that was her actual job, or Allison Bailey, who was sanctioned for daring to set up an association for Lesbians, Gays and Bisexuals. Or the women in Limerick prison who are constantly exposed to verbal abuse from male sex offenders, on the pretext that those particular sex offenders think they are women. And, to come to this particular topic, I'm concerned about the fact that WPATH is constantly cited by the NHS and HSE as the "evidence-based" protocol for treating children with gender dysphoria, when doctors involved with WPATH are clearly aware that there is little to no real evidence for treatment that is often irreversible - but they are doing it anyway.

If you think that's a "trans panic", then presumably you think the whole thalidomide scandal was a storm in a teacup?

As for a "fraction of society" - women are 51% of society. We are entitled to rights too. And children are entitled to be kept safe, no matter how few of them there are.

ceadaoin.

One of the more worrying parts (out of many worrying parts) is the concern that blockers and cross sex hormones may have caused liver cancer in at least 2 underage patients. I'm just a big transphobe for having concerns about off label prescriptions to children though. Some kids are getting these meds from Internet "doctor" services without their parents even knowing. What could possibly go wrong?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/05/wpath-tansgender-hormone-therapy-cancer-links-leaked-emails/

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121860927#Comment_121860927

No, that's a weird take on what I said: someone complained that posters were posting tweets instead of the source material. So now when the source material is made available for discussion, that's wrong too, apparently?? Why don't you say what you disagree with in the original material?

Or say what exactly would satisfy you? "No debate"?

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121861371#Comment_121861371

“I have one transition friend/colleague who, after about eight to 10 years of [testosterone] developed hepatocarcinoma [a form of liver cancer],” the doctor wrote.

“To the best of my knowledge, it was linked to his hormone treatment… it was so advanced that he opted for palliative care and died a couple of months later.”

Sounds very anecdotal and far from clinical or scientific. Which is funny because later in the article saying (of WPATH): "The experiments are not randomised, double-blind, or controlled." But anecdotes drummed up to clutch the pearls and leap to conclusions about what caused a patients cancer, A-OK.

ceadaoin.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121861404#Comment_121861404

I said it's "concerning" and "may have caused" it. Not clutching pearls or leaping to anything, thanks. Can't you just have a discussion without misogynistic tropes and hyperbole?

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121861404#Comment_121861404

Well that depends: the reason lung cancer was successfully linked to smoking, despite the tobacco companies best efforts to hide that fact was because it was a kind of cancer that was almost unknown in non smokers. Similarly, cervical cancer was associated with sexual activity and hence the Papilloma virus because, for instance, it was never seen among nuns and other celibate women.

So if the patient is of an age group/other category not normally vulnerable to this type of cancer, and if it is known that testosterone causes this cancer, then yes, while it's still anecdotal, it's perfectly reasonable for a doctor to start out by discussing it with other professionals to see whether a statistical link can be established. That's how the lung cancer issue was identified.

Note: I'm not saying that this is the case - I don't know. I'm just saying that there may be a very good reason for this sort of discussion among professionals. It's not the same as random internet users posting tweets about their uncle's friend's nephew's wife dying of the covid vaccine.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121861452#Comment_121861452

Misogynistic? I have no idea how you leapt to that now.

I'm replying to the content of the telegraph article thanks. It is hyperbolic if you want to use those terms, citing someone's anecdotes while citing people crowing about double-blind standards, the author of the piece states firmly that those hormone treatments caused the cancer when there isn't sufficient evidence to back that conclusion definitively. To your credit, you said it may have caused it, the author didn't even bother making that journalistic distinction in their opener.

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121861352#Comment_121861352

We're not in the US. I'm more concerned about women like Sonia Appleby losing their jobs for expressing concerns about child safeguarding, even though that was her actual job, or Allison Bailey,

We're not in the UK either. What's your point?

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121861524#Comment_121861524

Because the US was mentioned above, to dismiss the whole issue. But unlike the US, the UK is directly relevant because the HSE not only bases many of its protocols on NHS and NICE procedures but sends patients to the UK for treatment when it doesn't have the capacities itself. Thus Crumlin was hosting NHS/Tavistock consultants coming over to Ireland to hold clinics for children with gender dysphoria instead of sending the children to the Tavistock as it had been previously. That's directly relevant because Sonia Appleby was lead child safeguarding consultant there. There are no comparable links with the US.

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121861371#Comment_121861371

The Environmental lobby left out the fact that they were taking oral contraceptives as well.

One rare complication that can occur from taking hormonal birth control is the development of benign or non-cancerous growths on the liver called hepatic adenomas

I assume you are equally worried about the pill now and all women who take it?

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121861698#Comment_121861698

The risks to a woman's health from pregnancy are far higher than the risk from the oral contraceptive, except for women with contra indications (such as a previous history of breast cancer), which is why some women are not "allowed" the combined oral contraceptive. And that's without taking into account the consequences of unwanted parenthood.

That's why it was important (but finally inaccurate) to claim that children not given puberty blockers and hormone treatments for their gender dysphoria were more likely to commit suicide. Because, if true, that would have been a good reason for giving puberty blockers, despite the fact that they have not been officially tested and authorised for that indication.

Grayson

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121860743#Comment_121860743

It seems like a general right wing think tank. The guy who runs it is is a climate change denier, pro fossil fuel, rails against critical race theory and trans people. He also believes in fracking.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Shellenberger

The simple fact that it's an org that's called environmental progress and it's publishing stuff about trans people should ring alarm bells.

It's like every other dodgy right wing culture wars think tank out there.

Edited to include link

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121861710#Comment_121861710

The environmental lobby group dishonestly omitted the fact.

Again another red flag.

Piling up now.

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121861730#Comment_121861730

No idea what you mean. They posted up the report for people to read. Should they have put up caveats as well? Why, when it wasn't a discussion about the oral contraceptive? And, as I said, that is not a relevant comparator anyway because the risk-benefit calculation is so much more clearly in favour of preventing pregnancy.

Any chance you could get back on the other questions you've asked and that I've answered?

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121861729#Comment_121861729

Far from being a climate change denier, he won a Time Magazine "Heroes of the Environment" award some years back.

He doesn't go with the current group think about the solutions to climate change, for example he is concerned that the "race for renewables" is a solution for wealthy countries that will leave poorer countries even worse off than before. It's a reasonable point. He also thinks - like James Lovelock, inventer of the Gaia Hypothesis, again, not a right wing lobbyist of any sort - that nuclear is a far more environmentally friendly method that many have realised. But yeah, it's so much easier to dismiss him as a right wing crank. That way you don't have to deal with what he actually says.

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121861754#Comment_121861754

They made editorial claims, one of these is the treatment caused cancer.

They dishonestly omitted pertinent information in order to draw a conclusion they wanted.

Do not think that is another red flag?

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121861798#Comment_121861798

I'm wondering why you think that is a reason to dismiss the actual report, that's all. I understood the original objections by some posters here to the fact that people were posting twitter comments about the report, and not the report itself. But now it seems that the report itself can only be considered when made available by an "approved" whistleblower as well. Which is kind of a contradiction in terms.

(It's also not really pertinent, as I explained - the risk-benefit analysis from the contraceptive pill for women or girls at risk of pregnancy is not at all the same as puberty-blockers or cross sex hormones given to healthy teenagers)