World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) Files

"no one should be expected to conform to what you expect them to be"

Yet we are expected to conform to accept implicitly other people's beliefs or ideologies, otherwise we are terfs/transphobes/bigots/nazis.

Interesting.

No, I don't.

Trans people as far as I'm concerned can and should live their lives to the fullest and be as happy as they can possibly be.

Just because I have an issue with giving life changing drugs to children or having adult men that now identify as women compete in sports against natural women does not make me a bigot.

You can keep telling yourself that, that's literally all you guys have as a retort, because simply put, your arguments to the contrary does not stand up to any kind of scrutiny, ethically or logically.

You are telling me that I'm pretending reality isn't a thing?

Really?

Millions of years of evolution be damned, the makey uppy social constructs that have come to the fore in the last decade is how things actually are!

Good lord.

Dear God no, I’d never tell you any such thing, I’d just humour you and allow you to think I agree with you at least. If however you tried to tell me I was in the wrong bathroom, I’m likely to be less civil 😂

That's a good example: I'm perfectly happy to call someone Ms or Mrs if they wish - but that isn't what's happening here. First, the equivalent "opposition" would not be to Ms or Mrs, but between Miss and Mrs, IOW someone pretending to be married when in fact they were single, or vice versa.

That being so, the crux of the question is whether financial or other advantages accrue depending on marital status.

Mostly in our society they don't, so again, the legal fiction of calling someone Miss when she is married (or Mrs, if single) really is just a matter of being polite to someone, so why not. What is not reasonable is demanding that I believe that the person has that status just because they say so, when I have other reasons to know that isn't true. And trying to have "telling the truth" deemed a hate crime. Rude, if you wish, but a hate crime? FFS.

Finally, the reality is that going along with this legal fiction of male/female leads to two real problems, neither of which occur with calling someone Miss instead of Mrs. One is related to the OP, the other is about unfair advantages to the person who insists on their fiction being accepted as reality: this is really only the case for biological males wanting to pass as women, and not nearly so much for biological females wanting to pass as men. But we all know what the issues are with that.

The fact that you claim to think it's like calling someone Ms instead of Mrs is mind blowing. It's nothing like that. As anyone who has followed almost anything on this subject must surely know. The child who was abducted by "Amy George" (Andrew Miller) would not have got into the car if Miller had presented as a man. You may think that child's wellbeing is so unimportant that those of us who disagree must be only pretending to care about it so as to hide our "hatred", but that's on you.

That’s not what he says at all. He would say the same to a man who was just beaten by a woman, because in reality, there are all sorts of factors in sports, just like in any other domain, which will influence or affect outcomes, not just who can outrun who. I don’t expect for example a guy who has no experience of project management to be able to manage a project with the same degree of expertise as a woman who has professional qualifications and decades of experience across a broad range of disciplines and industries. That’d just be silly, yet that’s what you expect people should believe, just because I’m a man.

Same goes for medicine, science - we’re a long ways past scraping around in the dirt and scratching our holes, scavenging for food and dying in great numbers due to disease and lack of sanitation. Evolution is great in theory, but nobody has to pretend that we’re still beholden to it. That’s the very basis of civilisation and progress.

Training and experience and aptitude for a job do not equate with increased lung capacity, muscle strength etc.

I know what you’re saying, but I don’t agree with the way you’ve chosen to frame it - the Cass interim report was primarily focused on the failures of management at the Tavistock GIDS clinic, there was no records being kept and no follow-up with patients. The level of care being provided by ordinary clinical staff was praised in the report. Much of the failures of the clinic were down to poor decisions by the Trustees and management of the clinic.

That’s why there was no data to review and make decisions about treatment - because there was none recorded. That’s obviously not safe for the public, or the 7,000 children who were on the waiting list, or the 13,000 adults who were on the waiting list for the adult clinic, very few of whom I’d suggest were activists of any description.

The best medical evidence that is available is only available in other countries, and it’s of poor quality for the same reasons as the evidence presented by the Tavistock. That’s why activists are calling for better treatment and better healthcare. They’ve experienced the poor outcomes, so it would be ridiculous of any clinician or research scientist to suggest that they shouldn’t be listened to, that those clinicians and researchers know what’s best for them because they’ve had few complaints about their work and they can relate to anecdotal evidence from when they started in medicine in ‘94 and their first patient was a flamboyant man in his 40s. They’re not basing their opinions on evidence based medicine and best practice either, they’re basing their opinions on their own perception of the outcomes which they believe are best for the patient.

That’s why the HSE and the NHS are choosing the more holistic approach, because the practice of medicine has changed in the last 30 years, and clinicians are forced to listen to their patients now as opposed to telling their patients what’s best for them. They have to consider factors like informed consent, quality of life and of course what’s feasible within the limits of the public healthcare system, as opposed to making promises to their patients and then trying to tell the patients they need to take some responsibility.

That sort of reasoning is the same reasoning George Hook used to justify his claims. It wasn’t acceptable coming from him, and it shouldn’t be acceptable coming from anyone who imagines themselves as a medical professional, any more than they aren’t acceptable from anyone who imagines themselves as a professional sports and social commentator:

Mr Hook's comments on his show on Friday of last week were made while he discussed the case of a woman (19), who alleges she was raped by a former member of the British swim team.

"Is there no blame to the person who puts themselves in danger?" he asked.

https://m.independent.ie/entertainment/radio/george-hook-suspended-by-newstalk-over-controversial-rape-case-comments/36134624.html

I wouldn’t dismiss anyone as merely “an activist”, who objected to that crap.

I think he's too smart to directly say something as bare-faced as that. Really he's saying "You [we] just like to keep things as they are". We are against progress and progress is always good, right?

If we're still in the mood for analogies, I see it more like a kind of legal land grab under the guise of progress, where the people being dispossessed have for the most part been convinced to give up title to their land, on the promise that 'hardly anyone is coming and sure nobody is likely to actually come and take your land' and while they're saying this, they are also holding a big stick.

When Europeans colonised the New World, they didn't bother too much with niceties. I remember hearing about the actor John Wayne being interviewed about it. Initially and ludicrously, he argued that the natives were "selfish" wanting to hold onto the land. Eventually, in a moment of honesty he admitted "they had the land, and we wanted it". You can only afford to say that long after everyone is used to the idea, and there really is no going back. All the relentless bullshit, going round in circles, and not conceding an inch, is designed to just get people used to the idea.

volchista I’m honoured that you’ve chosen to temporarily remove me from your ignore list, and while I understand it must have been one of the most difficult decisions you’ve ever had to make in your life, I’m incredibly grateful as I don’t know how I could have managed without your constant guidance, probably not on nut milk anyway as that’s how early humans died out, and those who drank water didn’t fare much better given the conditions of that particular supply. It was in response to your claim that newborn infants instinctively seek out their mothers breasts for nourishment. There are so many issues with that claim I wasn’t sure where to start. But I’m happy to have been able to do what I had previously thought was impossible at least once in my life and make you laugh. You have no idea what that means to me 😁

It was quite obvious what George Hook had to do with your point - it’s easy to dismiss anyone who questions or challenges or disagrees with a particular opinion as merely “an activist”, in an attempt to suggest they shouldn’t be listened to or they have nothing of any value to offer or any knowledge which would inform policy regarding the treatment of children with gender dysphoria or incongruence. What could they possibly know or understand about the condition? There’s no evidence and no research on which to base any new approach so we’ll just be sticking with the approach that hasn’t worked for them, but works for us, and if anyone gets a bit uppity and starts asking questions, they can be dismissed as an activist or smeared with an accusation that’ll humiliate them into silence.

Because medical professionals with a national platform in the media, and journalists and sports commentators with a national platform with shìtty attitudes towards women, they’re the REAL victims, they’re being cancelled, and it’s they who deserve empathy and compassion and to be listened to, not those nasty trans activist perverts who just want to multilate children, assault women in bathrooms and prisons and take all the podium spots in women’s sports, and they have all the power to take over society with their nasty ideology.

That’s the sort of victimhood complex that leads to this sort of outcome -

Ipsos’ annual International Women’s Day finds 60% of Gen Z men across 31 countries think women’s equality discriminates against men.

https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/international-womens-day-survey-2024

Stick me back on ignore if it helps 👍

I think he's too smart to directly say something as bare-faced as that.

You give me far too much credit plodder 😂

But let’s bring your analogy into a more modern context, because if you want to argue historical arguments about land grabs and the beginnings of the human race, it’s not an argument I’d be making if I were to be arguing against civilised society and the evolution of democracy. I’m certainly not by any means proposing anything progressive - rather the opposite, arguing from first principles is distinctly conservative.

It’s been pretty much the basis of your argument that those in authority know what’s best for everyone else, and they’re not likely to cede any ground whatsoever, and why would they? It suits them. When you pointed out that there was no other area in medicine where activists had any input or influence, I was quickly able to provide an example, and a far more common one, that demonstrated you were mistaken.

And it’s because of those people you want to simply dismiss as activists that maternity healthcare has improved significantly in the last number of years. What wasn’t done was closing down maternity hospitals and clinics which didn’t come up to standard. They still won’t, in spite of the fact that in the US and the UK for example, the outcomes for black mothers compared to white mothers, are not good. Without those damned activists, circumstances would remain as they are, only for the fact that it wasn’t the discrepancy was pointed out by black mothers themselves, and it’s not only black mothers who are pointing out the discrepancy.

It would suit your purposes of course if it was only men who were advocating for better treatment and being treated fairly, but that’s not the case and it’s never going to be the case, as it shouldn’t need to be stated but given the progress that’s been made where anyone seeking treatment for gender dysphoria no longer has to undergo mandatory sterilisation, they can have children now, and the parents who are seeking help for their children - those parents aren’t either transgender themselves or activists either - their only interest is in doing what they believe is best for their own children.

No you didn't provide an example that was equivalent to this. I'm looking for an example where hard edged clinical decisions are being influenced by activists, ie decisions on medication and surgical procedures, ie where patients get to decide to use medications against the advice of doctors. Trans healthcare is unique to the extent that people think it's okay to self-medicate, (illegally) obtaining drugs through the post etc. You haven't actually gone as far as advocating all of that. But, this is the reality of activist driven healthcare.

It goes without saying that improvements across all medical areas have resulted from consultation with service users, including maternity care. But, there is a world of difference there.

There's no doubt that activism has achieved an enormous amount in healthcare. But, the disputes that occur are nearly always over allocation of resources (spending money), not over the efficacy of specific treatments.

"... those in authority know what’s best for everyone else"

That's not my position at all. I'm saying we have to be driven by unbiased evidence and it's clear that policy has been set by poor quality evidence up to now. When the people like Dr's O'Shea and Moran, are the ones who have been proven right about that, we should listen to them.

LOL George Hook's on-air warbling for his listeners is a fair comparison with the considered opinions of medical experts, but "babies naturally seek out the breast" is untrue (so much wrong with it that you didn't know where to start, you said!) because women no longer give birth in a cave?

This is the only reason I took you back off ignore - you are good entertainment, I'll give you that.

I just prefer it when I don't have to actually bother replying to your witterings.

Tough choice.

It's not just chest binders. Remember GenderGP, and a government minister's brush with them (hastily covered up)?

We've literally no idea how many kids are getting medication (illegally) through them. Though the minister seemed to think there was around 900.

While the HSE hardly endorses that, I think the bad relationship they have with the NGS tacitly encourages it.