World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) Files

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121866547#Comment_121866547

Lets repeat this, I never injected toys into this discussion - I pointed out how absurd it was as a metric.

Yes you did, post 105, quoted above. You said that it can be an indication of a child being trans at a young age. You did NOT say it was ridiculous there. We can all read your posts, you know that, right?

You also said (again, quoted above) that to not respect a child's gender identity from as young as age TWO can lead to child abuse no less.

Would you like to rethink that claim compared to what you're saying now? What do you mean exactly should be done at age two?

I mentioned Jazz Jennings - at age SIX Jazz was on TV as a transgender child. Do you really think that was acceptable behaviour for the parents to "respect" Jazz's identity by completely affirming him as a girl at that age?

Shoog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121867031#Comment_121867031

I referenced a reputable source - they are not my words and that inference is not my belief.

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121867074#Comment_121867074

So you quote stuff you don't believe as evidence of something you do believe? How can it be a reputable source for something you believe that's slightly different then? It wasn't an inference, it was a direct quote.

Because if you don't think that playing with "boy toys" at age 2 is an indication that a two year old might be trans, then you are disagreeing with your own link, which means you've given no evidence at all of this.

You can't quote "a reputable link" and then disagree with it, while still thinking it proves your point!

Finally, and just to be clear here, the first person to mention boys' toys was you, as evidence that children could be transgender at age two. So when you said I brought toys into this, that was untrue, it was you.

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121863175#Comment_121863175

A Not all trans people "suffer"

B You are allowed say trans people instead of othering referring to them as "these people"

C They may not all need psychiatrists.

CatFromHue

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121864468#Comment_121864468

Do you have anything to back up that a 14 year old can consent to such a life altering treatment that involves losing the ability to have children?

It's a bit of self fulling logic when you talk about parental consent and a referral as the parents will follow the medical professional's advice and the medical professional will follow the standards of care. While at the same time there's evidence that the doctors who wrote the standard of care know that these kids just don't understand these things.

As for the other stuff yeah it's good that the nurse was asking the question but Karasic is certainly downplaying the level of mental issues in what is a seriously ill person. Can they really consent to life altering drugs? Or is it just another self fulling argument as the standard of care written by WPATH say they can.

There's a very worrying bit in the middle quote from the unnamed gender therapist about getting assessment letters for people who look to have some serious problems and they presume they're living happily ever after. How can they presume that? Evidence based medicine shouldn't have someone presuming this.

Birneybau

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121866684#Comment_121866684

Right. Darn woman not just going along with what you are saying, badly.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121862387#Comment_121862387

See I would have thought so but the user in question seems comfortable making the accusation, so I had to ask if it wasn’t projection. Thanks for to your concern. I agree with you.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121862685#Comment_121862685

Please list the posts where I did such a thing thank you. I don’t even assume your gender.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121866840#Comment_121866840

Speaking of gender stereotypes why is it assumed Pearl clutching cannot be done by males? Hell the lead character of Steinbecks titular novel is male.

nullzero

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121860861#Comment_121860861

Shoot the messenger and question where they get their funding.

Oddly they never ask such questions of people saying things they agree with.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121871356#Comment_121871356

Never? Prove it

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121872081#Comment_121872081

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121872102#Comment_121872102

It's funny how the Boards lads are completely confident in their own abilities to interpret all the medical evidence, way better than the specialist medics involved, but only on this one particular issue.

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121872140#Comment_121872140

Seems like you've missed the subject of this thread, namely the very poor level of evidence on which much of what is presently deemed to be transgender "healthcare" has been based.

If, for example, there was no objective test for this suspected tumour in a limb, just a feeling in the teenager's mind, and if there was evidence that up to 80% of those teenagers who thought they had a tumour in a limb ended up getting better without amputation, and that the other 20% could always have an amputation later on if they still needed one, would it still be a great idea to amputate quickly, or might it be wiser to practise watchful waiting and other reversible therapies?

Shoog

or might it be wiser to practise watchful waiting and other reversible therapies?

As is the practice with transgender patients in Ireland.

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121873054#Comment_121873054

Well I know from experience that isn’t true.

Children are getting puberty blockers - the only thing that’s changed is that last summer, as a direct result of the scandal at the Tavistock clinic in London (and because the HSE’s protocols were based on GIDS at the Tavistock) the HSE finally had to stop putting NEW patients on puberty blockers. But those already on them have not been taken off them.

And so far (waiting for the NHS again I suppose) we’re all waiting to find out what the HSE’s new procedures are going to be.

So currently there isn’t a HSE procedure of watchful waiting because currently there is no officially designated protocol at all.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121872274#Comment_121872274

Seems like you've missed the point of my post, which is to point out the slightly ridiculous nature of the lads on Boards interpreting the medical evidence, supposedly better than the medics involved.

CatFromHue

That's because this stuff we're talking about isn't that difficult, it's pretty basic to be honest.

There is a lot of pushback against the WPATH in the medical field.

Shoog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121873413#Comment_121873413

Where is your evidence for that. You want there to be lots of push back so that's what you see.

ceadaoin.

The evidence for the pushback is the fact that several countries have started to dial back their treatment of kids with gender dysphoria and no longer dish out meds and surgery like candy. This is clearly at odds with what wpath recommend.

Shoog

GIDs type units are been expanded across the UK. There will be more and better services as a consequence. The closure of the Tavistocks unit will ultimately mean better and more treatment for transgender people.

In. America the hard right crusade against transgenderism has resulted on units been closed, but widespread ideological interference in medical facilities cannot be seen as a good thing and certainly a step back for people seeking treatment.

ceadaoin.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121873291#Comment_121873291

Bit like the other group of lads on boards who don't have kids but yet are extremely invested in other people's children being given life altering treatments based on not much evidence for their efficacy. They know these kids and what is better for them supposedly, better than the parents who birthed and raised them. But it is a discussion forum so, what can you do eh?

Shoog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121873821#Comment_121873821

I do have kids, and have friends who have kids so I call bullshit on this line of disengenious argument.

If my kids presented as transgender I would support them in whatever way possible, up to and Including surgery if they so chose that.

What is best for the child is always my driving motivation - wherever that leads.

ceadaoin.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121873806#Comment_121873806

Expanded for children? I don't think so. And Sweden? Finland? "Hard right"..hmm, sure 🙄

Shoog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121873877#Comment_121873877

You obviously haven't followed what has happened in the UK very closely. Expanded is exactly the correct description.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121873821#Comment_121873821

Why would you assume that people 'don't have kids yet'?

CatFromHue

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121873713#Comment_121873713

If you know about what's happening in the UK than you should know the above is true. A number of ex Tavistock employees are on the record about the worry they have for the level of care they provided to their patients when they worked at the centre. It was an internally lead process that lead to all the reviews which eventually ended with it being closed down, which I think is meant to happen at the end of this month. Also the Tavistock argued that it was operating in a more stringent way than what the WPATH had in their standards of care.

I don't think you're fully aware of what's happening in UK either as The Cass Review wants a new model of care which is multi disciplinary, that gender distress is no longer seen as the root cause of someone's other issues. That in some cases it's just another symptom of them that should be explored. The Cass Review has recommended that puberty blockers only be used in a clinical research setting, which is again at odds with the WPATH. As is the multi disciplinary care model.

Any country that has done a systematic review has come to the same conclusions as Cass. The WPATH's methods have never been shown to safe and never shown to effective to the standard required for such a level of intervention in a persons life.

It's in the DSM that majority of kids and adolescents who go through gender distress that it desists by adulthood and that most of them are gay. In affect their gender distress was related to not fully understanding their sexuality. This is backed up by evidence too, which is why it's in the DSM.

As part of the WPATH leaked files it's on page 34

"In fact, there are members within WPATH who acknowledge that some teenagers are mistaking their emerging homosexuality as a gender identity issue. During the panel, Massey described young patients who, after exploring their sexuality, “got to clarify some of their gender identity issues.”"

You're correct that I want there to be pushback on the WPATH's methods as they don't perform evidence based medicine. Their last standards or care don't even pretend to be evidence based which is a major problem as standards of care are meant to be evidence based.

Evidence based medicine puts the patient first. I can't understand why people have problem with that.

CatFromHue

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121873971#Comment_121873971

Remember that book Time to Think that I recommended to you before, maybe you should actually read it and check out The Cass Review too

Interim report – Cass Review

Shoog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121874114#Comment_121874114

The Cass report recommended an expansion of services and that is what has happened. The Tavistock GIDs unit will only close when those units come online. The main finding of the Cass report was that inadequate supporting mental health services were available at Tavistock (due to underfunding) and this has been addressed as part of the new services. The primary finding was that waiting lists were two long because of underfunding and the intention of the reforms is to reduce first referal times down from average 18months to the typical 18 weeks for NHS services.

Puberty blockers will still be used but a rigorous analysis of their outcomes will be part of their use, ie clinic trials associated with treatment protocols.

The outcome of this is that Trans referals will be seen earlier and treatment will be undertaken earlier. If the medical assessment find that transitioning treatments are appropriate they will be provided because to not do so would be medically unethical. The typical progression to medical treatments (ie hormones and surgery) at Tavistock was around 13% of referals and this is likely to remain unchanged in the new units.

Trans support groups are broadly welcoming of the changes brought about by the Cass report as they understand that trans people will get quicker and better treatment than was possible at Tavistock. This is far from the twisted narrative you and the right wing press are peddling.

The primary metric of whether a service is successful in its objects is reduction in harm. The evidence is clear that treatments up to and including transitioning reduces self harm, mental health issues and suicide in trans people to a dramatic extent, which is a clear indication that it is in fact fit for purpose and ultimately saving lives. The main risk to trans people is delays in accessing treatment and the reforms implemented as a consequence of the Cass report will reduce those delays.

CatFromHue

You're just not telling the full truth there. From the interim review itself

"Key points – context

• The rapid increase in the number of children requiring support and the complex case-mix means that the current clinical model, with a single national provider, is not sustainable in the longer term. 
•  We need to know more about the population being referred and outcomes. There has not been routine and consistent data collection, which means it is not possible to accurately track the outcomes and pathways that children and young people take through the service.  
•  There is lack of consensus and open discussion about the nature of gender dysphoria and therefore about the appropriate clinical response. 
•  Because the specialist service has evolved rapidly and organically in response to demand, the clinical approach and overall service design has not been subjected to some of the normal quality controls that are typically applied when new or innovative treatments are introduced.  "

"A fundamentally different service model is needed which is more in line with other paediatric provision, to provide timely and appropriate care for children and young people needing support around their gender identity. This must include support for any other clinical presentations that they may have.

It is essential that these children and young people can access the same level of psychological and social support as any other child or young person in distress, from their first encounter with the NHS and at every level within the service.

The Review team will work with NHS England, providers and the broader stakeholder community to further define the service model and workforce implications.

At this stage the Review is not able to provide advice on the use of hormone treatments due to gaps in the evidence base. Recommendations will be developed as our research programme progresses."

Interim report – Cass Review

A lack of consensus about the appropriate clinical response, the clinical approach and overall service design has not been subjected to some of the normal quality controls that are typically applied when new or innovative treatments are introduced, At this stage the Review is not able to provide advice on the use of hormone treatments due to gaps in the evidence base. This couldn't be more different than what the WPATH have in their standards of care.

Shoog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121874217#Comment_121874217

Really nothing in what you selectively quote contradicts a single thing I said. Treatment is been extended and access is been improved. Do you really want to deny those basic outcomes are the reality ?

The issues that occured at Tavistock were as a consequence of exponential growth in referals - precipitating an inability to follow their own best practice. This is been addressed by an EXPANSION of services.

The UK has suffered under decades of chronic and deliberate underfunding of the NHS in order to privatize services piecemeal, Tavistock was just collateral damage in the Tory campaign to sell off the NHS.