World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) Files

"Benign or non cancerous growths". In the instances referenced in the files, they were cancerous (hepatocarcinoma). Bit different. I'm sure you know that liver cancer is a fatal diagnosis for most people and there are known links with testosterone levels.

I actually do think that loads of women aren't informed or aware of the potentially serious side effects of taking the pill. But that doesn't really have anything to do with children being given experimental treatment off label with no knowledge of long term effects does it?

Yep. And there's very little in original post. I went to the page that was linked in the tweet in the OP.

There's a number of articles such as their executive summary which don't actually reference or quote anything.

And then there's the excerpts document. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56a45d683b0be33df885def6/t/65e6daabe13bf54cc3c829f3/1709628077018/U_WPATHExcerpts.pdf

That's a series of quotes. Some are anecdotal. None provide any context. None are cross linked back to the original source.

The "original source" is this. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56a45d683b0be33df885def6/t/65e6d9bea9969715fba29e6f/1709627904275/U_WPATH+Report+and+Files.pdf

The document is crazy to put it mildly. All the original documents they reference are in screenshots at the end. So it's not searchable.

they also make huge leaps. In one part, page 47-48, they take quotes from people working with trans people who say that transitioning really helps the mental health of trans people. They then claim that the people are saying they can cure schizophrenia by getting someone to transition. The quotes they use don't support their assumptions. Someone saying that transitioning helps a trans persons mental health is not the same as saying that it cures all mental illnesses. But that's what they say

Nothing they say supports this. I've read only a few pages but it's all along those lines. Take something and make a huge leap in logic.

You obviously didn't read my post

I didn't mention any of the things you mentioned.

Read it slowly and come back to me.

It does matter and the fact you're not able to understand why proves you really only care about this as an angle to attack trans people.

I'm assuming you mean puberty blockers by "experimental treatment off label with no knowledge of long term effects" since that's exclusively what minors receive. Children with precocious puberty take them too, it's hardly off-label or experimental. Unless you're a medical professional familiar with these drugs the language you're using is purely emotional.

It might seem a radical position here but I actually trust doctors and families to make this decision for children in a very tough spot, over the anti-trans cohort who love making it even tougher for those children under the guise of advocacy.

It is off label, they aren't approved for that purpose. There's already been a class action lawsuit against a drug company by women given blockers to delay their precocious puberty and who suffered all kinds of ill effects in adulthood. And they went through puberty, there is zero evidence about the long term effects of stopping the natural puberty process and replacing it with a cocktail of synthetic cross sex hormones.

Misogyny?

Posts like this are why boards is dying. You and I and everyone else knows full well that post was not in the slightest bit misogynistic. The pill is prescribed to women, so the only group of people who possibly could be uninformed about it's prescription to them, is... Wait for it... Women!

What? Only in the sense that medical professionals aren't informing women of these risks and often brush off any concerns and symptoms raised. Same old.

Constantly using tropes like "pearl clutching", and insinuating that women raising concerns are hysterical maude Flanders won't someone think of the children types is certainly coming from a place of not really liking women though. As is lecturing us about our own bodily functions and hormones that you clearly know nothing about. Hope that helps.

Well aside from my actual experience. Here is one

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30031980/#:~:text=At%20the%20same%20time%2C%20research,dissatisfaction%20may%20undergird%20these%20patterns.

And another

And another

A doctor will highlight the main potential side effects for any medicine.

They will not list the sometimes dozens of rarer side effects that can occur. All medicines have full disclosure of all potential side effects within their packaging.

The leaked documents don't show that WPATH knew it wasn't true.

Earlier I actually went and started reading the document that was released with the leaks. I even linked it. Please show me in that document exactly where they state that they knew they weren't working on best evidence. Because if you can't do that, then you're just repeating what others have told you.

According to what I could access of that, it basically states some clinicians do not dwell on rare side effects for healthy women.

Which is perfectly reasonable and makes sense, if Doctors started ranting and raving about the rare side effects of Paracetamol no one would take it.

Except you're wrong. Best evidence shows that teens can make those decisions. Plus you're ignoring the other stuff in that file where they said they wouldn't do anything without parental consent. That's the important thing there. They need a referral from a psychologist and parental consent before any treatment begins. So you're deliberately phrasing it in such a way to imply that there's no medical review and no parental consent needed.

Psychiatric illness should not be a blockage to any treatment. Capacity to consent is what's important. And it specifically mentions that. You can be mentally ill and still be capable of making informed consent. The fact that you've been diagnosed with low level depression does not mean that you can't make an informed decision about your medical treatment. Yes, there will be times when a person is mentally ill and incapable of making a decision, but the fact that there's a mental illness does not automatically disqualify someone. If that was the case no-one who's ever prescribed antidepressants would be able to receive any other medical treatment because according to you they can't consent.