World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) Files

Ok. A wrong 'un so

I don't understand why it's not considered a mental illness, much like other forms of body dysphoria, which could present in childhood or adulthood. It's quite clearly a mental illness and I don't get the shame in that either. 

The reason transgenderism is no longer considered a mental illness is because in and of itself, being transgender doesn’t cause any physical or mental health problems. There is no intervention required from a medical or clinical standpoint. Now, there are some people who still classify being transgender, or to be ‘truly transgender’ as requiring that the individual experiences gender dysphoria:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmedicalism

Gender dysphoria is the distress caused by the person’s perception of the difference between their psychological gender, and their physical sex. It can vary anywhere from being just something the person is aware of and doesn’t pay any heed to, to being a debilitating condition which causes all sorts of other problems for the person, which can include body dysmorphia, an entirely separate condition which can lead to other problems such as eating disorders, ill mental health such as depression and so on:

https://www.montenido.com/transgender-anorexia-dysphoria-vs-dysmorphia/#:~:text=To%20put%20in%20simpler%20terms,despite%20medical%20or%20personal%20reassurances.

The reason that legislation is shaped around it is because previously, people who are transgender were not protected by law from discrimination, it was precisely because the idea was regarded with shame and prejudice and as you suggest “the ramifications for society” of its acknowledgment, that there were no laws prohibiting discrimination, and people who are transgender were indeed again, as you suggest- reliant on the idea of people being polite so as to avoid being discriminated against. It’s why they campaigned for recognition in law, so that they were treated as equals in law.

It’s precisely because of the ideas of people like David Bell who proclaim there is no such thing as a transgender child, echoing similar sentiments expressed by Richard Dawkins when he proclaimed that there is no such thing as a Christian child or a Muslim child, that it gives some people the idea that it is permissible to discriminate against people on that basis, contrary to laws which prohibit such discrimination, precisely because of the ramifications for society if it was permitted to do so. Society has been there already, it didn’t work out so well, precisely because it permitted practices which were immoral.

You are what you are born, most of us don't like that for one reason or another (big nose, underbite, mental health issues, etc.) but we don't pretend nature somehow made a mistake.

The cosmetic surgery industry is a multi-billion dollar industry (and continues to grow), precisely because people seek to correct the mistakes that they feel nature has made. Mental health is another billion-dollar industry, precisely because nature is regarded as having made a mistake, and the distress that someone is experiencing is not natural - it is a condition which requires clinical and sometimes medical intervention and treatment.

Corrective surgery exists and is so-called precisely because the intent is to correct conditions which are regarded as mistakes in nature. It’s for this reason that corrective surgeries performed on infants who are intersex, are now prohibited in a few countries, because such interventions are now considered immoral as a violation of human rights standards and medically unnecessary, and legislation is required to prohibit and prevent these types of interventions:

https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL8N2GS5NQ/

It's nothing of the sort

Doctors are entitled to be partial and biased, particularly when it comes to "doing no harm". That is an active bias — and it's a good one — and Dr Bell has every right to his professional medical opinion on what was then experimental medicine.

They’re not entitled to be partial or biased, under any circumstances. Dr. Bell has every right to his professional medical opinion on medical matters, but the point of the article, which is not a critical analysis of the Cass Report, is that Dr. Bell is not an impartial observer, and his position is not based upon medical evidence, but rather is based upon his personal beliefs.

GMC guidelines already contain a clause for medical professionals to abstain from offering treatments which they have a moral objection to providing to their patients, and in those circumstances they must provide the patient with a referral to another medical professional who is willing to provide the treatment.

The Cass Review certainly did not vindicate Bell’s opinions, it didn’t even come close to it, because the Cass Review acknowledged the legal constraints on the medical profession such as medical professionals being required to obtain the patients informed consent, which Dr. Bell in attempting to portray himself as a whistleblower, has sought to undermine in his expression of his personal beliefs.

There is not the scientific basis to establish puberty blockers as an "appropriate treatment".

Given you are commenting about the Cass report for about 10 days that should have sank in.

You pushing such a treatment without a scientific basis is the very essence of an ideology driven view.

Not having a scientific basis for treatment is completely unethical.

My irony meter is now wanked