World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) Files

When anything involving children includes the need to keep parents out of it - huge alarm bells should go off!

Did we learn nothing from the Catholic priests scandal ??

Yikes, that is a long winded way of doubling down. How you can know anything about Canada having never been there is quite ignorant, but you do you on that one.

Easily, given you’re not the only source anyone is obligated to rely on, there’s plenty anyone can know about Canada without having to rely on the emigrant who’s spent a wet weekend in a foreign country and imagines they know all there is to know about the place. You might have a point if the discussion were solely about Canada, and who has or hasn’t been there, but it’s not, and therefore you just don’t have a point. You say to me ‘you do you’, but when I’m doing me and telling you the last time you tried to foist your feelings upon me that let that be the end of it, you STILL persist in doing so, attempting to prevent me from me doing me. It’s a noble attempt, but if Destination Canada couldn’t convince me to even so much as visit the place (and Canada is only one of many countries I have no wish to entertain), then you’re certainly not going to be able to, so again, even if it’s an indication of tripling down, outright ignorance as far as you’re concerned, I’m not the least bit concerned, as similarly as my attitude towards Canada - I have no interest in your opinions in that regard either.

Now, back on-topic:

Might want to be careful bringing up Jessica Yaniv as well…

Your advice here is equally unwarranted. Though I understand you may feel equally protective of the citizens of your adopted country, the reason I bring them up is as an example of the nonsense which emanates from Canada in an attempt to portray the country as a shìthole, in order to convince anyone who doesn’t know any better that it is indeed a shìthole. That’s not me doubling down, it’s just repeating what I said in the previous post, which you appear to have ignored. I’m not going to call you ignorant for doing so, as that would be uncivil. What I am going to do however, is point out that it was because of the deluge of media interest in Yanniv’s various adventures in stupidity that they were portrayed as being representative of a threat to humanity on the basis of them being transgender, and rather than confine their shìt within it’s geographic Canadian borders, the Internet has no borders, so it was inflicted upon the world, and we were all forewarned that Yanniv’s adventures in stupidity was a sign of things to come.

That didn’t happen, which prompted the question in my mind four years later as to the whereabouts and whatabouts of this biological weapon that was set to terrorise the free world. The anticlimactic answer to that question, is simply that nothing happened. Nothing became of Yanniv, they never even left Canada, and so if you’re still over there, you’re more than welcome to them, because from my perspective - I would never attempt to speak for anyone else, but I certainly don’t want them. From your perspective you’re perfectly entitled to perceive this unwillingness as ignorance, but like I pointed out to you previously - I’ve never drank my own piss either, I don’t have to, to know that it’s a bad idea. I’ve also said you previously that you should take your own advice and when you read something on the internet that you don’t like - move on. All you’ve managed to do so far is demonstrate that you are incapable of taking your own advice, not uncommon among people who seek to control other people, which is why laws exist which prevent them from doing so, even in Canada, as observed by what happened, or rather - didn’t happen, to Jessica Yaniv.

There’s a lesson for everyone in that tale, and despite your persistence in inflicting your feelings upon me in spite of being rejected numerous times now, I figure you’re at least intelligent enough to figure out the lessons you could learn from the case for yourself, in order to avoid being in the same position where due to the dunning-kruger effect - your expectations exceed reality.

So, I didn't get too much time to look at the SPHE material online, but from what I did see, I'd just make a few points.

• I agree now the Catholic Church was involved in formulating the policy.
  
• It seemed like there was a consensus (incl. from some of the Catholic bodies) that a new curriculum could be accommodated within the varied ethos-es (if that is the plural of ethos?)
  
• The definition of gender identity in the curriculum is much milder than the one I quoted earlier from a different document. It says nothing about it being fixed at a young age, and it distinguishes clearly from sex. More about that below<*>
  
• I remain unconvinced that the Irish Times article by Education editor (Carl O'Brien) misrepresented the situation in that the curriculum must be taught ie. "New Junior Cycle curriculum will oblige schools to teach about gender identity"
  
• It's conceivable that you are both right though - that if a school took a particularly hard line stance on it, rejecting it entirely, then maybe it could end up in the courts, and the school might win, if they made a strong case that their ethos rejects gender identity theory/ideology ….

… which brings me to the situation at third level, where gender theory is much more embedded, through the Athena Swan charter that institutions are obliged to sign up to, in order to receive government research funding (no constitutional protection against the secular religion here I'm afraid). Fair play to Colette Colfer (lecturer in world religions) for getting it changed at SET university in Waterford but it remains the case apparently at UCD, TCD, RCSI, where they all falsely claim that misgendering is "unlawful". That's fairly serious.

https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/education/2024/04/18/university-changes-gender-identity-policy-that-said-refusal-to-use-pronouns-was-unlawful/

<*> I don't have a major issue with the SPHE curriculum from what I could see of it. It's really just puzzlement at how something which affects a tiny number of people, and I mean the really tiny number of people who have consistently identified as transgender since a young age, and into middle age, but has been projected onto everyone. As far as I am concerned, the way the argument goes about gender being fixed at a young age (which isn't stated in the policy but has to be part of the background justification for it), you could just as easily argue that most children's fixed view of themselves as human beings from a young age, could justify a minority's view who identify as cats. "Sure, on the surface, biologically we are human, but inside we are cats".

The rest of it is either a passing phase, a mistaken reaction to sexuality, or an aspect of co-occurring mental health issues imo. Schools never formalised policies around the recognition of mods, rockers, punks, goths and all. More likely they went out of their way to disavow all of it. Maybe it is a reaction to that disavowal where we are attracted to the idea of recognising everyone's individuality now. It's really where other people are being compelled to participate, that the problems arise.

Are these puberty blockers legal for children in Ireland?

Yes. They've always been legal for children with premature puberty, and remain so.

The controversy is not about legality, but whether they are an appropriate treatment for children with gender dysphoria. They were only ever experimental in that indication, but due to pressure from activists, were given outside of research studies as though they were the accepted treatment for it.

Indeed they often seem to have been given along with particularly poor record-keeping, making meaningful follow-up of outcomes extremely difficult.

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-68838029

In the UK 38% of kids aged 5 to 7 are on social media

65% use messaging apps

In reality the low number is due to it being such a niche area of the national public healthcare system that there was never any real need before to provide the services in Ireland, it was just cheaper (or better value for the taxpayer if you like), to avail of the services in other countries such as the UK. Waiting lists are just a reality of the national public healthcare system in every country. For context, the number of children thought to be on puberty blockers in the UK is ~ 100 (estimated, because follow-up is not really a thing, never mind the numbers who are procuring medication through private healthcare and other illicit means):

The HSE said there are less than ten people under the age of 16 on puberty blocker medication, following specialist review by a team.

…
Fewer than 100 young people are currently on puberty blockers in the UK.

https://www.rte.ie/news/uk/2024/0313/1437607-uk-gender/


The issue of puberty blockers is as good a distraction as any to blow completely out of proportion in order to divert attention away from the absolute farce that is the national public healthcare system, not just in the UK or Ireland, but in most Western countries, it’s simply using a wedge issue to distract from the far more obvious issues impacting upon the greater number of the population. It’s not just Ireland where the HSE is in a bad way:

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/health-funding-crisis-will-be-even-worse-this-time-next-year-hse-boss-warned-stephen-donnelly-before-budget-2024/a1596727175.html

It’s no different in the UK:

https://amp.theguardian.com/society/2023/jun/11/nhs-dying-statistic-crisis-healthcare-75th-anniversary

Could be in a worse position:

https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/06/canada-primary-healthcare-budget-cut-study

Perhaps revisiting the diagnostic criteria for gender identity disorder in the DSM-4 and making the criteria more stringent for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria in the DSM-5 may not have been such a good idea after all, as it exposed the myth being peddled of success rates in treating children who were never experiencing gender identity disorder or gender dysphoria in the first place, but rather their parents who were adamant that their children were neither homosexual nor transgender, and sought the assistance of quack doctors relying on crude stereotypes to claim success rates that led to the idea that children could be converted to grow out of whatever condition afflicted their parents and those who were determined to maintain delusions and a social order that would always be in conflict with reality:

https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/debunked-no-80-of-trans-youth-do

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-end-of-the-desistance_b_8903690/amp

As for the idea that social media is somehow responsible? Social media is no more responsible than popular culture was always responsible for adults externalising their internal issues. It was no different when Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein was published and she only 20 years of age, critics imagined it could only have been written by a man, and even then the book was described as “a tissue of horrible and disgusting absurdity” (they’d a real way with words back then), but there’s no need to go back that far. Some of us here are undoubtedly of an age where we have fond (and perhaps not so fond for some of us) memories of the music of our youth, and the classic lyrics of some of the best of Britpop:

Girls who want boys
Who like boys to be girls
Who do boys like they're girls
Who do girls like they're boys
Always should be someone you really love

Damon Albarn was inspired to write the song while on holiday in Magaluf, Spain, with then-girlfriend Justine Frischmann, lead singer of Elastica. According to Albarn, the city had "really tacky Essex nightclubs" and a rampant sexual scene among visitors, with "All these blokes and all these girls meeting at the watering hole and then just copulating. There's no morality involved, I'm not saying it should or shouldn't happen."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girls_%26_Boys_%28Blur_song%29

You really aren't interested in the actual science since you have set your heart against an effective treatment. You don't want studies to be carried out to prove it's effectiveness. You don't want to see data which shows it reduces self harm among those who receive it. You simply don't want puberty blockers to be used on gender dysphoric children and you have made this abundantly clear.

You are using an activists report to make your case. Please.

Hmm. A "robust statistical model" you say?

Do you accept that Dr Cass complained in her report that several clinics treating young adults refused to cooperate with her by sharing their data, which would have allowed her to see the long terms effects of the various treatments on these children, once they had become adults and were no longer in the paediatric system?

Suggestion of lack of data integrity in gender clinics. The Cass report revealed that in a truly unexpected turn of events, all but one adult gender clinic refused to cooperate in a data analysis project that would have allowed  tracking of longer-term outcomes of 9,000 gender dysphoric young people, which included both those who underwent gender transitions as well as those who chose less invasive options. The responsibility for the research, which has obtained ethics permission, has now been handed over to NHSE, which will conduct the review without the gender clinics’s cooperation. The objection of the gender clinics and the responses to those objections (both contained in the appendices to the report) suggest that the reasons for the lack of cooperation may be ideological.

Does that sound as though they want to establish a "robust statistical model"?

And it could be worse than that - might they even have something to hide?

The reason the evidence based is so poor is because the service was so grossly underfunded that it was impossible to do followup. Who's fault was that exactly ?

You have never asked me that question. However from your framing it's obvious that you want to declare transgenderism as a mental illness. How progressive.

Do you have evidence that this is the true reason, or is that speculation on your part?

Cass didn't say anything of the sort anyway.

If they have a valid explanation for failings, wouldn't they have cooperated with her investigation, pointing out the need for extra money to be allocated for records?

What sort of illness do you think it is?

I mean, if it is not an illness, then there's no need for transgender medical treatments, is there?

We don't, for instance, treat homosexuality as an illness any longer because nobody requires medical treatment in order to achieve/validate their homosexuality. And the so-called "medical treatment" in the past was to stop someone from being gay, not to enable them to become so. That's a huge difference, which shows that being gay is innate, and not an illness.

The service providers saw this whole review as a carry forward of the hysterical response to Dr Bells whistleblower activism - which was a reflection of his own anti-trans position. I would be quite sympathetic to their position given the wave of right-wing culture wars bullshit they were been swamp by.

She greenlighted a series of studies to show the use of puberty blockers for gender dysphoria. You cannot do that without people getting puberty blockers and you cannot do that without a robust sample size. The number of people recieving puberty blockers for gender dysphoria is so small that it barely meets the required numbers to draw a statistically robust conclusion.

Hey - I am just accepting what the medical profession says about transgenderism - and they don't say its a mental illness.

I don't accept your interpretation of what they say - no.

Puberty blockers have been used for a long time on precocious puberty at this stage and if they presented a significant risk to health they would have been withdrawn in all cases. This has not happened so I just don't accept that they are a danger to children.

Whole lot of heresy there.