World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) Files

why?

Thank you.

Surely you know feminine lads and ultra macho lads, similarly females?

From what I see on this thread, the existence of trans people is not being disputed, it’s the prevalence and the rights afforded to trans people which is being discussed. Most people think it is just wrong for a trans woman who was born a biological male to be competing against women in elite sport be they genuine trans or not, a minority think if you think you are a woman you should be able to compete against women.

I agree with practically everything there except the spectrum bit, I think it is being used to allow people express themselves correctly but it has been hijacked by extremists, a feminine lads can still be attracted to girls but now the extremists categorise him as a lesbian, I think that’s the sort of crazy you are alluding to which I also find very disturbing.

I agree with that too.

Sounds like someone received flawed legal advice from the ICCL and TENI

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/transgender-taxi-driver-loses-discrimination-case-after-being-fired-over-inappropriate-comments-1863125.html

Not really hot on all this 'protected characteristic' stuff, clearly some abuse it has led to this mans identity (as in his name) being concealed.

I don't like to link the school shooting that happened in Canada, but... I came across a post on Twitter that made what I thought was a valid point, which relates to the last couple posts in this thread

The reason trans-identified youth do not have their Cluster-B personality disorders treated is not because the Canadian mental health system is underfunded, which it is. They don't get that treatment because parliament unanimously passed a law mandating a five-year prison sentence for any clinician who tries to.

Lots of people are "unhappy in their (perfectly healthy) bodies": too small, too tall, too thin too fat, not clever enough, not good at sports. Not good at certain sports. Good at sports but not Olympic level. Etc.

There are drugs for that…

(but you're right, that's not the solution to those issues, generally speaking)

The solution is generally not to mutilate healthy bodies and turn the child into a lifelong patient with multiple health issues. There's a reason why reputable doctors won't usually carry out plastic surgery before the age of 18, and even then often ask younger adults to undergo psychological evaluation first.

The reason being that they would be likely to lose their license to practice medicine, if they didn't end up in prison for committing a criminal act. The child is already a patient with multiple health issues though, and the alternative 'solution' isn't any better than the former - the idea of either 'conversion therapy'*, or leaving the condition (gender incongruence) untreated, in the belief that it's just a phase and the child will grow out of it.

*That's what the reference to five years in Canada is about -

Persons convicted under this new section may be sentenced to imprisonment for up to two years less a day on summary conviction or for up to five years on indictment.

https://lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/ResearchPublications/LegislativeSummaries/441C4E

But that doesn't mean those children weren't genuinely unhappy with their nose or their breast size etc. It's because they're children, and can't be expected to foresee all the possible outcomes that might not be exactly what they wanted or hoped for - even with relatively "simple" surgery like breast implants or a nose job. Never mind a mastectomy much less genital surgery that causes effective castration.

That's basically what kicked off this discussion in the first place - a couple of journalists imagined that they'd landed upon some form of concealed conspiracy, and it wasn't just a fact that healthcare for children experiencing gender incongruence has been a contentious issue, throughout human history really, though gathered a galloping pace in the 20th century when John Money floated the idea of a biological basis for gender, assuming that because that was the case, gender was malleable and what were characterised as deviations could be 'fixed', to enable children to better fit into society, as it was then.

In this particular circumstance regarding the scandal that isn't a scandal, it was because there are medical professionals dissatisfied with the fact that the informed consent of the patient is required, and the difficulties they were having in that regard with patients who were diagnosed with gender incongruence, children in particular.

How can they possibly consent to losing their future ability to reach orgasm (according to Marci Bowers, a trans woman and gynaecologist specialising in gender transition surgery) when they don't really understand what that means in the first place, nor the importance of a fully functioning sex life in a couple?

That though, is the purpose of informed consent - medical professionals are required to determine that the patient has the capacity to make decisions for themselves, and the information has been explained to them in a way they understand, enabling them to either give consent, or deny consent to whatever is the proposed treatment for the condition which they are affected by. It's a good thing you specified that it was Marci Bowers opinion, and not your own (I wouldn't have thought any less of you, I'd just have been confused. But because I know it's Marci Bowers opinion, I have no cause for concern - Marci Bowers is an idiot, you're not). They're not consenting to losing their future ability to reach orgasm (it should be obvious that there are several factors involved in reaching orgasm, not just simply physiological factors), and as for the question of the importance of a fully functioning sex life in a couple, that's really a question for couples themselves as to whether a fully functioning sex life is of any value to them as a couple in the first place, let alone the value they might place on it's priority in their relationship. Essentially, that one aspect of a relationship is of greater value to some people than it is to others, regardless of the sex of the individuals involved in the relationship.

Devil saw me coming and said “Oh fcuk no, back you go!”, so here I am 😂

I fully agree - we've seen in the past how it works out when third parties are allowed have a say on what does, or doesn't go on in the bedroom. However that's all fine and dandy when we're talking about an established adult couple, who have enough experience of sex to know what importance it has to them.

It’s also fine and dandy as far as I’m concerned when we’re talking about either children or adults who have no experience of sex, because whether or not they’ve had sex is not a critical factor in determining whether or not their informed consent regarding any form of treatment is valid. I wouldn’t have a say one way or another in a patient’s treatment no more than any member of the general public has a say in a patient’s treatment, regardless of what they are being treated for, or what the treatment consists of. It’s a matter for the Courts if there is a question over whether or not informed consent regarding any patient’s treatment is valid. Medical professionals tend to want to avoid medical negligence claims being pursued against them, or criminal charges for that matter, depending upon the circumstances involved in any given case. That doesn’t just apply in cases where the patient, having been diagnosed with gender incongruence. is being treated for it, it applies in any case.

When it comes to teens, or even younger, the idea of giving them possibly irreversible medical treatment that will prevent them having a normal sexual response and thus a satisfying sex life fills me with horror. I suppose you could say what they've never had, they'll never miss, but I think we should give them the opportunity to make their own properly informed choice at an age where they have a full appreciation of the implications.

Not meaning to be picky or anything, but just need to clarify that there’s no ‘possibly’ about it, the treatments are irreversible. It’s for this reason that medical professionals are often reluctant to offer certain treatments to children diagnosed with gender incongruence - they’re aware of the potential risks. The standard of informed consent in those cases is still the same (informed consent differs slightly between England and Ireland, link down below). I’m not certain what you mean by a ‘normal sexual response’ (I’m mindful of the fact that we should keep the discussion family friendly, PG-13 anyway), because what’s normal as far as you’re concerned, may or may not be consistent with someone else’s idea of normal. In any case, medical professionals are expected to give the patient information which it is considered would be reasonable in allowing the patient to make an informed decision.

This is where Cass frustrates me to be honest because she would absolutely be aware of these standards given she is a medical professional with considerable experience and knowledge in the practice of paediatric medicine, yet her commentary is often social commentary and not medical opinion based on her experience and knowledge - her suggestion for example that ‘children are being weaponised’, or that they’re not aware of what is involved in medical and surgical transition, as though she isn’t aware of the legal obligations and professional standards to which medical professionals are held. It simply appears as though she and people who argue about children being led down a medical pathway and so on, are simply clutching at straws when they have nothing else. I don’t think that’s the case with you as I’m quite aware of your broader positions on various issues regarding medical care and healthcare in general.

I wouldn’t say that what they never had they never miss, for the simple reason that the purpose of treatment is to enable them to have what in the opinion of the medical professionals involved in their treatment is a reasonable expectation of a normal and healthy sex life (this will vary from one patient to another depending on their circumstances). Gender incongruence significantly reduces that possibility or the patient’s opportunities or ability to do so. It’s the duty and responsibility of the medical professionals involved in the patients care to ensure that the patient has a reasonable understanding of the implications of any treatment, and a reasonable understanding of the implications of foregoing any treatment.

The requirement of a full understanding of the implications of any treatment would be an impossible standard, but I get where you’re coming from - an example of it being Keira Bell’s claim that she wasn’t challenged enough before she gave consent to the particular course of treatment. In her case she sought a judicial review of the practice of treating minors with puberty blockers and whether or not minors in those circumstances could be considered competent to give informed consent. Legal proceedings went back and forth for a bit before it was determined that the Courts would not interfere in decisions which should be made by medical professionals, though in cases where a dispute arose, it would be settled by the Courts -

In 2020, she took legal action against the clinic. The High Court ruled that under-16s were "unlikely to be able to give informed consent" to puberty blockers, but this was later overturned by the Court of Appeal, which ruled that doctors can judge whether young people can give consent to the treatment.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cyvg6l5nypgo

https://www.lawlibrary.ie/viewpoints/medical-consent/