World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) Files

Shoog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122069995#Comment_122069995

The red herring here is the reference to cats. I never identified as anything other than a man throughout my life. I had absolute certainty of that from a very young age.

I similarly respect transgender children who express absolute certainty in their gender. I have no reason to doubt that sincerity.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122070279#Comment_122070279

Having a sexuality that removes your ability to reproduce is inherently a problem/malfunction.

Neither being homosexual or transgender impedes upon an individual’s ability to reproduce.

It IS however, because of the stigma which still exists and prevails in society that some individuals prefer to hide this fact about themselves from others, and enter into relationships where they reproduce and have families and children of their own, and sometimes they reveal this fact about themselves in later life, and sometimes they don’t, for various reasons known only to themselves.

faircitywok

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122070368#Comment_122070368

Of course it does. There's being polite and wanting something to be true and there's being mind numbingly wrong, of which this is the latter. Two homosexuals cannot reproduce unless they engage in heterosexual sex, or leverage modern technology to essentially simulate this and overcome this impediment. You cannot possibly think homosexuals can reproduce, even with the modern technology route there still needs to be genetic material from the opposite sex.

Shoog

The biggest omission in the Cass report was the lack of an explicit statement of her acceptance of the reality of child transgenderism, it's implicit in the whole report so she does accept it's reality - but never acknowledged explicitly. For that she is getting significant justified criticism and she will come to regret opening up her position to been characterized as an acknowledgment of the anti-trans activists such as those on these boards.

Shoog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122070279#Comment_122070279

Your words speak for themselves and I will leave it at that. Let others be the judge of your reasonableness.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122070387#Comment_122070387

There is indeed being polite and wanting something to be true, and there’s being mind numbingly wrong. Two homosexuals can reproduce, and a few have done, two heterosexuals can also reproduce, but two men or two women, regardless of whether they are homosexual or heterosexual, won’t be able to reproduce by natural means. IVF is certainly one way of overcoming this impediment, but that is generally only available to heterosexual couples who are having difficulties reproducing, and sometimes that does require donor material in order to be successful.

It has nothing whatsoever however to do with an individual’s sexual orientation as to whether or not they are capable of reproduction. Being either homosexual or transgender, in and of itself, does not render a person incapable of reproduction, no matter how much you may wish to attempt to argue otherwise.

faircitywok

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122070442#Comment_122070442

I'm genuinely a bit confused by this. So when you say two homosexuals can reproduce, you do mean if they have heterosexual sex outside of their homosexual relationships right? If so, then I suppose I need to clarify what I said to what I thought was blindingly obvious (and I suspect you did too and purposely tried to find a loophole in the wording) and say that homosexual sexual intercourse cannot produce a child. If I was arsed, which I'm not, I'd also argue that by engaging in heterosexual sex to completion you're clearly bisexual to some degree and not a homosexual, but at that stage I think we're so far off topic it's best to just leave it.

concerned_tenant

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122069692#Comment_122069692

Children are treated for gender dysphoria, not because they are transgender — the two things are different, but you appear to elide them.

The vast majority of children treated for gender dysphoria do not identify as transgender in adulthood. Their identity becomes confirmed as gay or bisexual in adolescence in the majority of cases (80-90% of children in clinics are gay or bisexual).

It's not possible to know which children with gender dysphoria will end up as transgender as adults. Young adults can self-identify as transgender, and as adults can consent to surgery if they so choose.

Most transgender people do not, however, have surgery — including people who identify as non-binary.

faircitywok

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122070407#Comment_122070407

There has to be a Godwin's law esque name for this type of non-response hah. If you don't want to engage, fair. But don't pretend what's said is not logical and deserving of a rebuttal, even if you personally disagree/think my logic is wrong, which I'm open to.

Birneybau

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122070279#Comment_122070279

I think you have united us all in saying…what the f'?

Shoog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122070471#Comment_122070471

It is very possible to establish who will later become transgender identifying and its been happening for decades at this stage. Your belief that its not possible is just that a personal belief. Most people who enter GIDs type services are identified as not been transgender and only a very small subset go forward to any invasive treatment. Unfortunately in the past those other majority who were not identified as transgender were generally shown the door without any more assistance - and on the back of the Cass report that will improve somewhat.

You keep presenting your beliefs as fact - thats a bad habit to get into.

Shoog

Lets just restate this because it seems to have gone unacknowledged, Dr Cass accepts that gender affirming treatments are appropriate for some children presenting as gender dysphoric.

This seems diametrically opposed to what some claim she said on this very thread !

concerned_tenant

Mermaids, a wholly discredited organization that failed in its safeguarding duty of care to the children entrusted to it, now rails against a medical report designed to protect those same children.

You couldn't make it up.

Mermaids should be closed down with immediate effect.

https://twitter.com/Jebadoo2/status/1783770402927374525

Shoog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122071235#Comment_122071235

You seem to share the hysterical misrepresenting of what Mermaids actually said - which was not to reject the Cass report but ask for a clarification of the lack of emphasis and acknowledgement of trans children.

I am hardly surprised that you are parroting misinformation though.

plodder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122067317#Comment_122067317

I see him described above as "sniveling sycophant" which is exactly the kind of toxic talk that Cass complained about.

Of course it is, because when anyone expresses their opinions in the public domain, it doesn’t follow that they are entitled to be protected from criticism. That much is obvious to anyone, long before Cass stated the obvious in her report.

Of course, you are allowed to criticise Dr. Bell. But, it's still an ad-hominem attack. Going for the man rather than the ball.

While there is a lot of unseemly gloating going at the moment, Bell's article in the Guardian didn't use that kind of language. It was quite calmly argued in my opinion.

Shoog

Dr Bell is a deeply disengenious commentator, he never openly states his true position regarding transgenderism in any of his comment pieces - you have to go digging to find out what he really believes about trans people. Any commentary he makes on the subject has to be viewed with deep skeptism.

cdeb

Ha!

"Dr Bell is deeply disingenuous because he holds views I don't agree with"

Followed by "You have to go digging online to find out what he really believes" - a sentence more at home in the conspiracy theory forum than in any reasoned debate

It really is pathetic - though at least it keeps the thread going and in the forum eye until the next (transphobic sycophant) comes along with more developments

concerned_tenant

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122072539#Comment_122072539

I'll play devil's advocate for a second and grant you the (unfounded) assumption that Dr Bell is motivated not by evidence-based medicine, but by hatred of trans people.

Even if that were true, which I don't for a second concede, it still wouldn't invalidate the medical conclusion that Dr Bell came too — and it wouldn't invalidate the Cass Report that vindicated that medical conclusion thereafter. Nor would it invalidate the same conclusion that other clinics throughout Europe have similarly arrived at.

So I'm willing to grant you all the assumptions, but you would still be left without a good argument.

But as I say, your characterization of Dr Bell is false.

It's an Ad hominem argument used as a battering ram against the Cass Report and nothing less besides.

Shoog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122073027#Comment_122073027

The Cass report did not vindicate Dr Bells opinions so your expounding a false premise to base your argument on. Dr Bell doesn't accept that any child can be transgender so he has no roll around transgender children. He has some very peculiar ideas altogether which If not transphobic certainly are very close by any transgender persons analysis.

concerned_tenant

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122073065#Comment_122073065

Children present to clinics with gender dysphoria.

It's impossible to tell what adults will later identify as transgender.

Dr Bell's comments are his professional, medical opinion — and he's entitled to it. It's not hateful speech, it's medical speech.

And you're wrong to say that the Cass Report doesn't validate Dr Bell's concerns about puberty blockers and the lack of safeguarding re: children, on this question. It absolutely does validate his concerns.

Shoog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122073125#Comment_122073125

Repeating the same belief as fact will not get you where you believe it will.

cdeb

Christ, there's irony

AllForIt

I don't know why it took so long for someone to write this article, but better late than never I suppose. None of it is news to me of course but delighted to see it in print anyway finally.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/04/28/meet-the-mean-boys-of-trans-activism/

Enduro

An interesting opinion piece from one of the Guardian's regular columnists :

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/27/woke-isnt-dead-mainstream-right-furious-met-police-national-trust

There are a few paragraphs about the Cass report and the ongoing debate around it. We can see within this thread exactly what she is referring to :

But then came the paediatrician Dr Hilary Cass’s landmark review on treating transgender children, which found that medical interventions have been underpinned by “remarkably weak evidence” and made clear treatment should be holistic, seeking a full understanding of everything going on in children’s lives.

Though Cass has stressed that she wasn’t seeking to undermine trans identities or the right to transition, and though she carefully avoided broader political or philosophical arguments, the political fallout is still going on a fortnight later. Gender-critical feminists, long vilified for saying pretty much what the review says about puberty blockers, want an apology, and the shadow health secretary, Wes Streeting, duly obliged. The education secretary, Gillian Keegan, who once defiantly declared that trans women are women, says she wouldn’t use those words now. The Labour MP Dawn Butler had to retract claims that the Cass review excluded more than 100 research studies from its deliberations (she was quoting a briefing from the LGBTQ+ pressure group Stonewall, which Stonewall now admits was wrong). And in Scotland, the SNP-Green party coalition has imploded amid tensions over the scrapping of supposedly unrealistic climate-change targets and the Greens’ reluctance to accept Cass’s findings.

The tide, in short, is visibly turning against a particular strain of trans activism, leaving tough lessons to be learned about the kind of scolding tone and morally absolute refusal to engage with reasonable opposition that can be fatal to progressive causes. Yet the appalled public reaction to Rishi Sunak taunting Keir Starmer over trans rights, on the day that the mother of the murdered trans teenager Brianna Ghey visited parliament, suggests there is still broad public sympathy for trans people themselves.

I can only agree with her that the actions and debating style of over-zealous trans activists are having a detrimental effect on their cause. It's also very interesting to see Wes Streeting, who could very well be the next UK health minister, moderating his opinions considerably (And his viewpoint as an ex-Stonewall employee… he was their head of Education at one time).

concerned_tenant

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122077116#Comment_122077116

The think we reached a critical juncture with the Cass Report and the WPATH files.

There's basically no way back now. The extreme activists have finally been exposed for what they are. No amount of intimidation or bullying will work anymore.

Any MP or public figure that rails against the Cass Report will be considered a radicalized extremist.

concerned_tenant

How the tectonic plates shift swiftly.

Today, a tribunal in England has awarded "exemplary damages" against Social Work England for its harassment of gender critical social worker, Rachel Meade.

Exemplary damages are only awarded in the most extreme cases, where it is deemed unconstitutional; and to discourage the same behaviour going forward.

This isn't a coincidence, either.

We are witnessing a permanent sea-change against a form of activism that has gotten away with too much, for too long.

That activism is now in permanent recession. Better late than never.

https://twitter.com/HJoyceGender/status/1784686943197950361

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122079121#Comment_122079121

There’s a brilliant response on that same thread to this judgment, and I’m going to just steal it shamelessly:

concerned_tenant

It seems the consequences of the Cass Report are still flowing through.

Only yesterday, the NHS suddenly decided to prioritize biological sex over gender in their charter.

Now, the leader of the Labour Party, Keir Starmer, has said that trans women should not be treated in women's wards; exactly the opposite of what he has been saying over the past number of years.

It seems the trickle effect of the Cass Report is going to permanently reverse the status quo in healthcare.

https://twitter.com/LeftieStats/status/1785290911351550431

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122084227#Comment_122084227

That is excellent news - but at the same time rather saddening because it shows how spineless they really are.

It means that when they were calling women bigots and “rights-hoarding dinosaurs” for wanting female spaces to remain female, clearly they must always have known even then that TW weren’t women and that putting them in female wards and prisons was harming women, but they just didn’t care. Because there’s nothing in the Cass report that defines women - so this sudden change can only be because they’ve decided to cut their losses and jump off that particular bandwagon before it’s too late for them.

Which, while a welcome development, is still somehow deeply depressing.

AllForIt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122084227#Comment_122084227

Yeah that's funny because when Labour are in power nothing will change and the TRA's can't keep going on about the Tories creating a wedge issue. It was a load of nonsense anyway, it played out as it should in the political arena due to multiple dispute points and they lost. Women don't have penises, duh.