World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) Files

http://www.mja.com.au/journal/2025/223/7/cass-review-does-not-guide-care-trans-young-people

I had to look up what imperilling meant 😁

maik3n

Speaking of reports/studies, an opinion from Australia of all places,
raising questions about the infamous Cass review in the UK.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15176391/Children-able-choose-gender-age-EU-proposals.html

I think he means putting it in danger, "imperilling" is an unusual though real word. It's significant because Guyatt was at the forefront of the movement of medicine towards the use of systematic evidence in clinical decision making. Yet here is, capitulating to activist pressure to help bury his own research, whose conclusions are not to the liking of the activists.

Maybe he used that word because while the research is in danger, some of the co-authors are trying to continue to publication without him - though he's the big high profile name involved.

conorhal

They haven't gone away you know….

I see that EU quangos are still trying for force self ID for children (80% of who desist from gender dysphoria as they grow up, if allowed to grow up instead of getting pumped full of puberty blockers). Why can't these insane ideologues leave children alone. The top down attempt to force gender ideology on the citizens of the EU that neither want or support this cracked cult contines it seems.

Hamsterchops

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123891139#Comment_123891139

Quite despicable, disgusting and totally unethical. Just another crazy EU proposal at this stage. So much money to be made from the gender pharmaceutical industry, it's the golden goose that will keep on giving for ever and a day, (if they can get enough vulnerable & gullible people to buy into it) buying drugs for life !!

Can't be imposed on ithe UK, but it could happen here.

aero2k

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123890501#Comment_123890501

That article runs into trouble very early on:

Worldwide, the Review has received criticism from expert professional organisations 4,5,6,7

Note 7 refers to WPATH as an "expert professional organisation". This thread arose out of a report that proves that WPATH is anything but that, using leaked internal information to substantiate that position. Notes 4 and 5 refer to similar organisations, and note 6 refers to the Endocrine Society, which by aligning with the discredited organisation WPATH can thus be deemed equally discredited. It's all downhill from there.

aero2k

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123890027#Comment_123890027

If you google "Stella O'Malley Gordon Guyatt" you'll get a substack article with a video of an interview O'Malley and Mia Hughes did with Guyatt. Here's an excerpt from the article:

Dr. Gordon Guyatt revolutionized modern medicine. As a professor at McMaster University, he coined the term "evidence-based medicine" in 1991, created the hierarchy of evidence that every medical student learns, and wrote the User's Guide to the Medical Literature that taught physicians worldwide how to critically evaluate research. For 48 years, he's been the gold standard for rigorous scientific thinking in healthcare.

Then came his systematic reviews of pediatric gender medicine. His team found only low-quality evidence for youth interventions. When twenty U.S. states used his work to restrict access to these treatments, Guyatt called it "egregious, unconscionable misuse of our work." But in this explosive interview, he admits signing a statement endorsing "medically necessary care for gender diverse youth" without reading it carefully. "That was not my paragraph, and I didn't read carefully enough," he confesses. When pressed further: "I was a dope. Okay. I'm sometimes a dope."

Slightly OT, David Healy on his website and in at least one book explains why the idea of evidence based medicine, which has a logical appeal, has had the unintended consequence of reducing the quality of medical care and increased the risks in medical treatment. It's complex, but as I understand it he's saying that much research, particularly clinical trials, relies on average effects, but there are no average patients. Following on from that, when a patient reports a non-average response, doctors tend not to believe them because ebm says that's not possible (I'm paraphrasing obviously). It's a big topic.

Back OT, Guyatt, seems to have lost his moral compass due to pressure to be politically correct.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123890501#Comment_123890501

One of the problems I have with critics of the Cass Review, and there is some valid reasons btw, is that they don't show their evidence for why they should be allowed to continue as is. As in throw the Review in the bin and say ok show me your evidence base for why you're medicalising these kids. When they do attempt to things fall apart. For example in that article it says

"It acknowledged that some trans young people benefit from puberty suppression"

The problem here is that no one knows who will or who won't. The authors of this paper don't mention that.

This bit stuck out too

"Although only a minority of trans adolescents commence any GAMT,62 some experience it as essential, even life‐saving"

and references this paper

Well-Being and Suicidality Among Transgender Youth After Gender-Affirming Hormones - Luke R. Allen, Laurel B. Watson, Anna M. Egan, Christine N. Moser, 2019

which did

"Method:

Forty-seven youth (13.73–19.04 years;

M = 16.59, SD = 1.19) who received gender-affirming hormones were assessed at least 2 times: before the start of treatment and at least 3 months after treatment."

3 months is far too short a period. If the mean is 16.59 then they were reassessed when they were still 16. This just reinforces what Cass found that the papers in favour of blockers are unreliable and weak. There is no long term data on how the original cohort medicalised by the Dutch on how they're doing. Then you also have the adult clinics in the UK not allowing Cass access their data on kids who were medicalised and then went into the adult clinics. The UK shouldn't be starting a trial on blockers until that data is thoroughly reviewed.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/2025/10/10/clare-moriarty-why-are-women-still-treated-as-a-statistical-anomaly-in-health-research/

This has been mentioned on this thread before, in particular the “disproportionately higher mortality in women with cardiovascular disease than men”. The article in the IT marks the publication of an evidence review by the Health Research Board recently.

Even something as medically routine as cardiology is tainted by the tendency to think that men’s bodies represent all bodies, and that research based on their bodies is sufficient to steer general guidelines.
:
Insufficient research is conducted [on women's health] because the topics don’t occur to researchers as medically urgent, and they are not considered medically urgent because little research is done on them. These factors also contribute to under-disclosure and under-diagnosis – many people simply don’t know enough about them. Yet they routinely affect 50 per cent of the population.

Maybe another factor is the delegitimising of biological women as a category, in the name of inclusion.

aero2k

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123893359#Comment_123893359

I read a review of a book called Invisible Women a few years back. It deals with this and related issues - why women are more likely to die of heart attacks as the symptoms tend to be different and the emergency is not recognised, why women are 47% more likely to die in car crashes - crash test dummies tend to be male, and women are not just small men, their bodies are differently proportioned, and the fact that phones are too big for women's hands.

But on this and the other thread we'll be told not just that men and women are the same, they are interchangeable in any and all circumstances. Follow the science indeed.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123890027#Comment_123890027

Following from the last post, here's a rather sad development. Dr. Gordon Guyatt is one of (if not the) pioneer of evidence based medicine. Appparently, he has backed out of his own research under pressure from gender activists.

The word 'Apparently' is doing a lot of the heavy lifting in that sentence. On the face of it, it would appear that Dr. Guyatt was a bit of an idiot who didn't do his homework on who SEGM were, and was persuaded by SEGM sponsoring the studies to the tune of $250k, but underneath all the headlines, is the fact that Dr. Guyatt is also opposed to WPATH's guidelines, stating that he disagreed with the wording in their recommendations. He didn't so much back out of his own research under pressure from gender activists, he gives all sorts of reasons why he chose to withdraw first, the whole team, and then his name from the papers, before later wanting back in! To say the whole thing is a mess, is an understatement, but if I were to be pressed on it, I'd say he's trying to claim naivety when he realises his own reputation is now in shít -

Documents also reveal that, as WPATH’s guidelines were nearing publication, the organisation was under external pressure from high up in the US government to remove minimum age recommendations for gender related hormones and surgeries, writes Block.
At first, WPATH declined to make the change because it would subvert its “consensus based” methodology. But when the American Academy of Pediatrics threatened to denounce the guidelines if this change wasn’t made, WPATH removed the ages entirely.
After the dispute between Johns Hopkins and WPATH just one review was published. It found the strength of the evidence “low” in determining the effect of hormonal treatment on anxiety, depression, and quality of life, but it nevertheless concluded that such treatment “promotes the health and wellbeing of transgender people.”
Gordon Guyatt at McMaster University says, “All guidelines should be based on systematic reviews of the relevant evidence.” Furthermore, he says, “well conducted science that benefits the general community” should be available to all, so “it’s mysterious why Johns Hopkins didn’t publish” all the reviews it conducted, and it’s “problematic” that WPATH would “attempt to block publication.”
Even if the reviews were disseminated on preprint servers, says Carl Heneghan, director of the University of Oxford’s Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, “there are no excuses in this modern era for not making your data or your particular systematic review available.”

Sources:

The BMJ investigates dispute over US group’s involvement in WHO’s trans health guideline - BMJ Group Trans Health Care “Skeptics” Lost a Key Ally—Now They’re Having a Meltdown – Mother Jones
Gordon Guyatt vs. transgender people – Transgender Map
Pediatric Transgender Care and the Contentious Rise of SEGM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123893359#Comment_123893359

Maybe another factor is the delegitimising of biological women as a category, in the name of inclusion.

That's definitely not a factor in the lack of research into issues pertaining to women's health. The major factor (as opposed to focussing on niche issues such as transgender healthcare) as to why there is feckall research on issues pertaining to women's health is simply that they're not that interesting to researchers, who are predominantly men. It's one of the reasons why Viagra which was initially developed as a blood pressure medication, later developed as a medication to treat erectile dysfunction (as medically urgent needs go, erectile dysfunction is well up there for men!).

The Accidental Aphrodisiac: The Story of Viagra | OpenOChem Learn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123893579#Comment_123893579

I read a review of a book called Invisible Women a few years back. It deals with this and related issues - why women are more likely to die of heart attacks as the symptoms tend to be different and the emergency is not recognised, why women are 47% more likely to die in car crashes - crash test dummies tend to be male, and women are not just small men, their bodies are differently proportioned, and the fact that phones are too big for women's hands.

It does, and it gives plenty of examples of systems designed by men, for men, where they weren't required to design systems for women (the World Fair for example in the Victorian era - the guy who came up with the idea of public toilets, while he was mindful of the fact that the need to relieve onself is a biological imperative common to both sexes, only women were charged to 'spend a penny', the idea being that only women would use the facilities, and it would make a tidy sum for the organisers. It did). And yes there is the example of the crash test dummies being modelled on men (sans family jewels, guess it saves on plastic!), but bad designs are by no means limited to just not being designed for women, history is littered with examples of constructs which weren't designed with men in mind either, but rather 'the average man'. That change was led by necessity too.

But 'the fact that phones are too big for women's hands'? That's an unfortunate side effect of amplification by social media. It's not a fact that phones are too big for women's hands, it's a fact that some people think the world should revolve around them, and social media gives them an opportunity to 'call out' the likes of Apple (and it is particularly Apple and the design of the iPhone comes in for criticism from women with small hands), the claim being that Apple doesn't care to design a phone for women. The evidence of iPhone sales contradicts that assertion. iPhone Mini and Plus models just don't sell as well as regular and Pro/Pro Max models.

Battle of the sexes: Men and women like different iPhone models | AppleInsider

Men And Women Prefer Different iPhone Models, Study Shows

Both articles refer to the same study by CIRP, and then there's 'the iPhone effect', because contrary to popular belief, women can tell the difference between 5.5, and 6 inch… screens, and they prefer a bigger screen 😏

In the above side-by-side pie charts, we split Apple and Samsung audiences by gender. Globally, two-thirds of all Apple device owners are female. The figures are nearly reversed for Samsung, with men making up 62% of their mobile device audience. While not shown in a chart, we did break these audiences down by gender and generation. Doing so revealed that Apple appeals particularly well to Millennial and Gen Z females. In fact, over 4 times as many female Millennials use Apple versus Samsung devices. Within Generation Z, twice as many females use Apple over Samsung. There is a fair amount of speculation as to why younger females use Apple and older males use Samsung. Apple’s sleek design and intuitive user experience may appeal more to women, while the ability to heavily customize Android on Samsung could appeal more to men.

Gen Z & Millennials Prefer Apple iPhone Over Samsung | Flurry

It's kinda funny this came up, because only the other night I was watching a video by one of my favourite tech reviewers in which she actually explicity made the point that the whole cult behaviour of iPhone users was to put it frankly - weird:

https://youtu.be/hf2WxfiMVW8?si=PSM6BVC5vSM0acra

As she explains - it's simply down to personal preferences.

https://www.irishtimes.com/podcasts/inside-politics/is-this-the-end-of-the-gay-rights-revolution/

This is a very interesting podcast. The article title spins it one way, but the description is a bit more nuanced.

It's about a book called "The End of the Gay Rights Revolution" by Prof. Ronan McCrea (a gay man himself), in conversation with Hugh Linehan. It takes 27 minutes to mention the word trans, but you know from the start that's where it's going, but it is written from a gay rights perspective.

The book traces the shift from decriminalisation to equality, the AIDS-era turn to pragmatism, and the post-marriage-equality problem of purpose. McCrea contends that movement overreach, mission creep to ever-broader agendas, and a reluctance to confront awkward truths leaves freedoms exposed to changing demographics, populism and a revived moral conservatism. The conversation asks what a strategy of consolidation rather than perpetual expansion would actually look like and whether it carries costs as well as benefits in a world where history rarely moves in straight lines.

I think the arguments that McCrea makes might resonate with some fellow liberal (if also pragmatically minded) progressives. Then again, he may end up being dismissed as one of those "conservative gays".

The anecdote at the start is shocking but unsurprising to anyone who lived through the 80s/90s in Ireland. Probably one of the best points he makes is how malleable the ordinary person on the street is - and how horrendous that anecdote looks from today's perspective, but normal it was at the time.

Haven't had a chance to listen to that yet, so I don't know what he says.

That podcast has brought up the trans topic slightly over the last while and usually in the context of this is something that's going to be addressed in the medium term in Irish politics.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123901915#Comment_123901915

He's UK based and it doesn't get into specifics. I think his point about demographics applies more to the UK than it does here (for now anyway). But, the general point is relevant here too. I'm reluctant to try and summarise it, because I think that only means it will be dismissed and not listened to by some. It's worth listening to.

It was interesting but for the most part I don't think he said anything revolutionary. Most of what he said has been said by others and they got dog's abuse for it, so I guess his timing is good here. The stuff he said on migration was interesting and if David Quinn had said it he would have gotten dog's abuse for it!

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123901886#Comment_123901886

I thought I knew where it would go when you referred to a shocking anecdote from the 80s in the context of a gay revolution - the manslaughter of Declan Flynn, which was the catalyst for legislative change in Ireland. I wasn’t expecting the anecdote he gave which is far more trivial by comparison. I looked up the guy and I think this article gives a good summary of the interview he did with the IT (apart from the fact that in the interview he refers to the IT at the time as a conservative right newspaper, and the article below he describes it as a progressive newspaper) -

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/10/10/gay-rights-revolution-stonewall-set-back-decades/

I’m obviously not the target audience, but I get what you mean when you say it might resonate with some fellow liberal (if also pragmatically minded) progressives. Personally, I wouldn’t think of liberal and pragmatic in the same sentence, but that’s just me. In the same vein, I think McCrea when he refers to the idea of recent events in history as being a blip (I’m paraphrasing), and gay rights being achieved as part of wider social change, his point only makes sense if one ignores the fact that liberalism has it’s origins in the Age of Enlightenment, and the current crop of old-school liberals were once a pain for the liberals who came before them. Essentially, he’s old, and his ideas are even older.

I don’t know if I’d say the interview was interesting, but like CatFromHue says, most of what he was saying has been said by others already, though the fact that he comes across as ‘Douglas Murray Lite’ is a good thing. Douglas Murray got two books out of the same material as McCrea gets one, and they’re a tedious slog. Where McCrea differs though is that he’s more concerned with the gay rights movement in particular, but when he’s suggesting that gay men ought to sacrifice their freedoms for what he believes to be in their best interests, that’s probably the point where he’s going to lose an audience.

I don’t get his whole argument about various movements trying to make themselves more appealing to straight people either, it goes against the whole idea of liberalism and equality when one has to depend as he puts it ‘on the kindness of strangers’ to be recognised as being equal in law entitled to the same rights, freedoms, dignity and respect as everyone else. It’s not unreasonable to see that the various movements would have common ground which is why they refer to themselves as a community. The beauty of liberalism and individual freedom is that if he doesn’t want to be part of it, he isn’t forced to participate in it, he’s free to do his own thing if that’s what he actually believes in.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123903564#Comment_123903564

I think that misses the point. There was wide spread revulsion at the time at the killing of Declan Flynn. What happened to McCrea would make the front page of the papers today, but was considered a merry jape at the time - publicly humiliating an effeminate 13 year old boy. He rightly asks how many of the people who laughed at the incident at the time went on to vote for marriage equality and abortion decades later.

but when he’s suggesting that gay men ought to sacrifice their freedoms for what he believes to be in their best interests

That's certainly not what he is saying. I don't know how you got that idea. What he did suggest is that taking up the cudgel on behalf of the trans cause since 2015 has been immensely damaging to gay people.

I don’t get his whole argument about various movements trying to make themselves more appealing to straight people either, it goes against the whole idea of liberalism and equality

I think it's a more subtle a point than that. It's partly a numbers game. As he pointed out, the gayest place in the world is San Francisco and gay people are still only 15% of the population there. The gay fight was essentially won, but things are going backwards now. And why? Because the fight was won, and through a measure of arrogance, the campaigners had to move on to something else to remain relevant, despite knowing this fight was unwinnable.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123903537#Comment_123903537

That's true. There were some interesting insights and quotes (eg. Daniel Patrick Moynihan - "Liberals started to lose, when they started to lie"). But, most of it has been said before. In today's messed up world it matters a lot who says it though and the way it is said. Note, the attempt to put him in the same box as Douglas Murray (though I do accept OEJ makes some effort to address the ideas as well). But, at least it's not the Graham Linehan box.

Another great quote which marks him as a traditional liberal in my book was the one from GK Chesterton about the angry man who demands that an apparently useless gate should be removed from a field. The response was that the demand should absolutely not be entertained unless the complainant can articulate why the gate was put there in the first place.

It's such a valuable lesson/quote which relates to almost every political and social controversy and I'd never heard it before.

https://fs.blog/chestertons-fence/

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123903771#Comment_123903771

I think that misses the point. There was wide spread revulsion at the time at the killing of Declan Flynn. What happened to McCrea would make the front page of the papers today, but was considered a merry jape at the time - publicly humiliating an effeminate 13 year old boy. He rightly asks how many of the people who laughed at the incident at the time went on to vote for marriage equality and abortion decades later.

I know, I almost did miss his point, but he misses the point that it wouldn't happen today because the sport of tennis has become far more professional than it was when he was a ball boy. You wouldn't see players today engaging in the same sort of behaviour that John McEnroe was notorious for at the time. These days John McEnroe is more likely to be found protesting about a tennis stadium named after one of Australia's sporting icons. McCrea with his anecdote is comparing apples and oranges - effeminate boys are still a common source of ridicule regardless of anyone's attitude to Constitutional or Legislative change.

That's certainly not what he is saying. I don't know how you got that idea. What he did suggest is that taking up the cudgel on behalf of the trans cause since 2015 has been immensely damaging to gay people.

I got that from his overall argument, more specifically when he talks about his assumption that people wouldn't have voted for marriage equality if they were aware of the fact that gay men have open relationships. That's an assumption based entirely upon his opinion of gay men in open relationships, it has nothing to do with legislation regarding marriage equality, and he being a Professor of Constitutional and European Law would know that. You did say though that his opinions are more relevant in the context of the UK rather than Ireland, and that's a fair point. He makes a brief mention of Goodwin in relation to the right of people who are transgender to enter into marriage, but that decision was made at a European level in 2002 and only enacted in UK law as the Gender Recognition Act in 2004, some ten years before 2015. Suggesting that the cudgel was only taken up since 2015 is either a demonstration that he's not familiar with history, or, he's being deliberately misleading in order to make the points he's making. I'd prefer to lean more towards the former than imagine he's engaging in the latter. In any case, no damage has been done, as no laws in relation to people who are gay have been repealed. It was only recently for example that SCOTUS determined that employers who discriminate against people on the ground of sexual orientation could be found liable for unlawful discrimination, a decision which I would suggest was as significant as Obergefell v Hodges.

I think it's a more subtle a point than that. It's partly a numbers game. As he pointed out, the gayest place in the world is San Francisco and gay people are still only 15% of the population there. The gay fight was essentially won, but things are going backwards now. And why? Because the fight was won, and through a measure of arrogance, the campaigners had to move on to something else to remain relevant, despite knowing this fight was unwinnable.

Again he's being very selective with his anecdotes, either unaware of the historical context, or deliberately ignoring it. San Fran has a higher percentage of gay people than other cities in the US because of activists like Harvey Milk and the numbers of men who when they were expelled from the military at the time, rather than return home, they decided to stay in San Fran. Effectively, they were a community, who didn't always have the same aims, but they had more in common than the issues they held different opinions on. If anyone's trying to move onto something else to remain relevant, it's McCrea, although as such by moving onto something else, he's hoping to become relevant. The point he's making ignores the reality that Constitutional or Legislative change in a democratic society isn't driven by appealing to the majority, it's driven by recognising that a minority which are currently not recognised as equals in law, are entitled to equal treatment in law.

Again, that's something McCrea should know, but he seems to overlook. In the context of this thread if I may use an example - it would be like if someone is seeking medical treatment and the provider suggests they hold on a minute while the doctor takes a beat on the public's opinion as to whether the patient should receive treatment or not, and what form that treatment should take. Thankfully for the patient in question, that's not how the public healthcare system, or legislation and professional guidelines which regulate the medical profession, actually function in reality. That's why his point about Mpox and gay activists 'not wishing to air their dirty laundry in public' doesn't actually hold - medical professionals weren't making the same association between Mpox and gay men as McCrea is willing to, simply because it's not true. That kind of association between a disease and gay men was made in the 80's in relation to AIDS. It wasn't true then either, the association was a stereotype fuelled by ignorance.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123903952#Comment_123903952

It's not an attempt to put him in the same box, he is in the same box as Murray. It's why I say he comes across as 'Douglas Murray Lite' - the message is the same, it's just toned down, a bit like Pope Frank was considered progressive, but fundamentally he still maintained the ideas of the Catholic tradition in relation to homosexuality. McCrea is easier to tolerate than Murray is all I mean. The difference though between Murray and Linehan should be obvious - while Murray's caustic rhetoric is tedious, he's considered by his peers to be a public intellectual. Linehan on the other hand, is nothing more than a public nuisance - he used a stereotype of transgender people for comedy effect in one of his tv shows, it was criticised as promoting a negative stereotype by someone who was transgender, and he couldn't take the criticism, instead deciding that he'd show people who are transgender who's boss. That's working out about as well for him as expected.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123904370#Comment_123904370

I know, I almost did miss his point, but he misses the point that it wouldn't happen today because the sport of tennis has become far more professional than it was when he was a ball boy. You wouldn't see players today engaging in the same sort of behaviour that John McEnroe was notorious for at the time. These days
John McEnroe is more likely to be found protesting about a tennis stadium named after one of Australia's sporting icons. McCrea with his anecdote is comparing apples and oranges - effeminate boys are still a common source of ridicule regardless of anyone's attitude to Constitutional or Legislative change.

It's nothing to do with the sport of tennis. It's about societal attitudes and how different they were in 1990. it could have happened at any form of sporting or other entertainment where a child was available as a spontaneous, off the cuff prop.

If this exact thing happened today, it would be front page news. It's not even conceivable that it could happen … it simply couldn't because it could only have happened decades ago in the past, like in 1990.

Even the interviewer Hugh Linehan, who was objective/independent to a fault, for the whole interview, prefaced it by saying it might "explain to younger listeners how different the world was only a short time ago". This is what it was and people can make their own minds up.

He was a (13 yr old) ball boy at a charity tennis match in TCD in 1990 involving Henri Leconte (French top tennis player, who won the Davis cup with France the following year) and who had a reputation as a bit of a joker. Leconte started looking at McCrea making gestures with his wrist, swinging his hips etc. McCrea didn't know what was going on, but the crowd (in on the joke) started laughing. McCrea didn't know where to look, and eventually Leconte moved on to his next trick. The most astonishing thing about it is what happened next. The match was reported in the following day's Irish Times and a specific reference was made to it in terms like - Henri Leconte is such a great showman. And his first trick was to imitate/make fun of an effeminate ball boy …….

I found it shocking because I was still knocking around TCD in 1990 (officially left in 1988) but it wasn't surprising. Some people in the crowd probably thought the behavior was boorish, but many thought it was funny and the Irish Times agreed.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123904507#Comment_123904507

It's nothing to do with the sport of tennis. It's about societal attitudes and how different they were in 1990. it could have happened at any form of sporting or other entertainment where a child was available as a spontaneous, off the cuff prop.
If this exact thing happened today, it would be front page news. It's not even conceivable that it could happen … it simply couldn't because it could only have happened decades ago in the past, like in 1990.
Even the interviewer Hugh Linehan, who was objective/independent to a fault, for the whole interview, prefaced it by saying it might "explain to younger listeners how different the world was only a short time ago".

I get that plodder, that it was meant as an example of attitudes then and how he makes the point that these people thought of themselves as 'gay-friendly' and here they were laughing at the tennis star imitating him (while, just for context - at the same time they would have been aware of the decision in David Norris' case at the ECHR). I've no doubt it was humiliating for him personally. It's just I wasn't expecting such a benign example is all. Linehans 'younger listeners' bit just struck me as odd tbh, as though anyone under the age of 50 is listening to an Irish Times podcast.

I found it shocking because I was still knocking around TCD in 1990 (officially left in 1988) but it wasn't surprising. Some people in the crowd probably thought the behavior was boorish, but many thought it was funny and the Irish Times agreed.

Yeah I get what you mean when you said you found it shocking, but I think the idea of if it happened today it'd be front page news, is just completely blowing it out of proportion. I'd agree the behaviour was boorish, but a guy behaving like an asshole isn't uncommon, let alone newsworthy, and a guy putting on effeminate mannerisms making fun of a child? It'd make a few people's social media feeds for about 5 minutes before they went on about their day. I have no doubt there would be some media outlets would want to make a thing of it though for their own purposes. For example, both liberals and grifters were championing Dave Chapelle's comedy as an expression of free speech not so long ago, they're having a melt-down now and suddenly they have to make the point that Chapelle is a Muslim and all the rest of it, because he said there was more free speech in Saudi Arabia than there is in the US -

‘That Oil Money Must Have Been Sweet’: Chappelle Under Fire For Anti-US Remarks Made In Saudi Arabia

It's just Dave Chapelle being Dave Chapelle, that's why it's not made any headlines in mainstream media, no more than the idea a tennis star entertaining the crowd by being the kind of asshole that would use a child as a prop would make headlines - it'd be pretty much expected if the guy was known to be an asshole already.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/2025/10/15/michael-mcdowell-liberals-must-stop-adopting-lazy-woke-stances-on-complex-issues/

Michael McDowell making the same points in today's IT, referring to the same podcast, book and anecdote from it, and some of the same quotes.

Incidentally, RTE radio's round up of what's in the daily papers went into some detail on Roisin Ingle's column about the Irish Times style guide, but overlooked McDowell's piece above. Still the elephant in the room, for RTE. Seems like the Indo has gone cold on the issue as well. The IT deserves some credit for addressing it, or at least having columnists who are prepared to do so.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123906940#Comment_123906940

Michael McDowell making the same points in today's IT, referring to the same podcast, book and anecdote from it, and some of the same quotes.

Behind a paywall plodder -

Liberals must stop adopting lazy, woke stances on complex issues – The Irish Times

Micheal making statements like that using vague references to the Criminal Justice (Sexual Offences) Act 1993 (the act that decriminalised homosexuality) must think we all have short memories. I don't expect he would want to remind people of the many, many times he adopted lazy stances on complex issues -

Fears of more legal child-sex loopholes | Irish Independent

As the application of the Chesterton's Fence thought experiment in relation to decision making goes, that particular example is a doozy.

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123904370#Comment_123904370

No I confirm, you definitely are missing the point. I won’t re explain it, as @plodder has done so already, but I will add that when I read the article by Ronan McCrea, the appalling Irish Times coverage of the incident reminded me very much of a Martyn Turner cartoon in the IT that has stayed with me ever since, about I forget which Irish politician who was off on a controversial African junket at the time.

Turner showed him being boiled alive in a pot by half-naked natives with bones through their noses.

It’s so odd to see the reality of these “right-on” politically correct types when the mask slips. It’s not the first time I’ve seen incidents that lead me to think that the most outraged anti racists or male feminist allies etc are often the worst people of all, with no basic ethics, just opportunism and a general self righteousness whatever their current religious/ideological grandstand.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123909695#Comment_123909695

No I confirm, you definitely are missing the point. I won’t re explain it, as @plodder has done so already

It's clearly not for my benefit you're assuming I missed the point, I got the point.

but I will add that when I read the article by Ronan McCrea, the appalling Irish Times coverage of the incident reminded me very much of a Martyn Turner cartoon in the IT that has stayed with me ever since, about I forget which Irish politician who was off on a controversial African junket at the time.
Turner showed him being boiled alive in a pot by half-naked natives with bones through their noses.
It’s so odd to see the reality of these “right-on” politically correct types when the mask slips. It’s not the first time I’ve seen incidents that lead me to think that the most outraged anti racists or male feminist allies etc are often the worst people of all, with no basic ethics, just opportunism and a general self righteousness whatever their current religious/ideological grandstand.

There was no mask slippage though, it'd be silly to infer any greater significance to events that just weren't there. I get that the point was 'ohh the hypocrisy' and what not, but that kind of finger-pointing in itself is just opportunism and a general self-righteousness from people who don't share their perspective. It's silly, and it's tedious, and I get what you're saying, but do I think it's odd? No, it's fairly typical behaviour regardless as you say whatever their current religious/ideological grandstand. By way of example, the Late Late Show one night had Kenny Everett and Sinéad O' Connor on, and Sinéad saw it as an opportunity to stick it to Everett about his apparent support for Clause 28, or Section 28. Sinéad assumed that Everett should act a certain way, or argue a certain way or whatever, but those expectations were based upon her perspective. Everett of course being Everett, not only did he not share her perspective, but he explained what he believed was a better way to achieve the same goal -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNkdxBqb4OM

I don't imagine anyone who doesn't already share McCrea's perspective is likely to feel the same way about the future of gay rights, transgender issues, immigrants, liberalism and so on, as McCrea does, which is why while McCrea is of the opinion that liberals having taking on transgender rights advocacy is going to cause a backlash against people who are gay, in reality his opinions are nothing more than the usual fearmongering nonsense from a paternalistic perspective of assumed authority.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123911839#Comment_123911839

The numbers tell a different story though. This is PBS so they didn't seem to be willing to delve any deeper than attributing it all to political polarisation, but other respected organisations like Pew Research and Yougov have been tracking these trends to a greater level of detail, over long periods of time, and it's very much along the lines that McCrea suggests.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/u-s-support-for-lgbtq-rights-is-declining-after-decades-of-support-heres-why

He only referred to this obliquely, so I hope I'm not misquoting him, but it's not just the perception of "pulling up the ladder". The tennis anecdote maybe had another purpose. Would an "effeminate" 13 year old boy be accepted as same sex attracted today, or be pushed (by social media and other influences) in the direction of changing gender and opposite sex attraction? Some will answer - it's down to individual choice, but you can't seriously argue that social media is influencing young people in all kinds of malign ways, except on the subject of gender. There are genuine questions about how aligned these views are with each other. He also mentioned the situation in Iran where transgenderism is accepted but you can be stoned to death for being gay.

volchitsa

Not sure if this deserves a new thread - it's slightly off topic here but I can't find a closer fit and I don't really have time just now anyway (trying to do a bit of work while constantly updating twitter coverage of the BFF/Sara Morrison case), so I'll post it here for now:

Sal Grover in Australia has noticed some movement on reactions to her case in the previously captured Australian media. She is pretty sure that this is as a result of the upheaval in the BBC.

https://twitter.com/salltweets/status/1990383652996612531?s=20

Here's hoping that the Irish media are presently undergoing a similar level of destabilisation concerning their comfortable certainties and will have to start being a bit more open to the fact that women also have rights, even if that makes some men unhappy.