WPATH SOC8

I meant to say thank you to @Thingybob for highlighting the most egregious aspects of the WPATH “standards”. On a broader note, women in the UK are leading the world in protecting children from damaging body modifications - thank you!

The gravy train rolls on. In no other field of medicine are you allowed to provide such damaging treatment with disruption of puberty and lifelong damage to healthy tissue and function without some evidence of effectiveness. Yet, “gender” doctors continue to participate in damaging young people. Is it the diffusion of responsibility, that causes clinicians to suspend their critical faculties? The psychiatrist/psychologist tells the endocrinologist that the child needs this “treatment”, but they are not the ones administering it. The endocrinologist can claim it was the mental health clinician who told him/her it was necessary, as can the surgeon.

From the little evidence that is available, the most effective treatment for childhood gender dysphoria is puberty. Sadly there is no money to be made from it. So children must suffer the consequences of an ideology without foundation, conducted by people without scruples.

I don't see a medical care protocol, just a lobby group's wish list or a religious group's litergy.

Does anyone know if it’s normal to have a human rights declaration in a document about medical care protocols? It sounds defensive to me. Like they’re so unsure that they have to justify themselves. But perhaps it’s a regular feature in other areas of medicine?

Arrggh ! Posted too soon! Who in their right mind would think it acceptable for someone with no medical qualifications to give this advice regardless of their age! Even if she was 45 she still isn't qualified! It's so dangerous that ideological beliefs are being treated as science!

When you do a research study, if you are an ethical scientist you will present the results in an unbiased way as possible. You can manipulate the results eg selecting specific followup periods that are more 'favourable' or (pertinent in these studies) combining subgroups such as sex so as to 'hide' unfavourable outcomes in one group. But your results should still be the numbers generated by the research. The conclusions however are a mixture of summary and pure speculation. Speculation can be helpful in designing a future study but that is all. They are nor research findings or information.

t seemed to conclude that it made for better psychological outcomes

No, it speculated this. There was no evidence to conclude it.

I am glad you read it through LovelyRicepudding and (if I understood you correctly) you did not think it showed that overall this hormone improved the state of people with gender dysphoria; you thought it failed to investigate the effects when it is used for other conditions; and, that though it seemed to conclude that it made for better psychological outcomes, this seems unlikely from the data.

In terms of language - there is a trend to make language reflect that preferred by the patient group, or rather, the loudest voices in the patient group. This is to make the report more patient centred. In falls down here because it means the report starts from a position of denying science and placing an ideology at the fore. (I actually think there can be issues with this approach across a range of conditions and is part of the trend to demonise science as the (boo hiss) 'medical model')

Had a quick.look through that review. Basically all the studies are poor quality observational studies which didn't show any difference. They did not consider any data on the use of these drugs for other conditions for safety. It is suggested in the conclusion that the no change might indicate it stops the children getting worse psychologically (they are in person studies) but given 80%+ improve without treatment that would indicate the opposite. It also says sexes may respond differently.

Placemarking :(

Thanks,@ThingyBob
That seems reassuring.
The “sex assigned at birth” wording from NICE is imo unscientific. It definitely suggests that ‘opinion’ was the criteria.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I thought WPATH didn't have any trained clinicians nor have they ever conducted any independent research. Didn't someone leave stating that WPATH never considered the impact on women?

arms.nice.org.uk/resources/hub/1070905/attachment

This Nice document states it was produced as evidence to help the Cass report. It uses “Sex assigned at birth”
How can a scientific body justify this? Gender dysphoria is the subject not DSDs.

I am not particularly able to understand the document, but it doesn’t seem to find the hormone treatment being discussed especially harmful.

So their idea of 'evidence' is other lobby groups?

“As Trans Lead for
@AmnestyUK_LGBTI
, I’m proud to have worked with
@AmnestyUK
and
@libertyhq
on a joint statement on our undeniable support for all trans children and young people whose right to access healthcare should never be in question.“

Imagine calling puberty blockers ‘healthcare’.

Thingybob
Thanks for tracing back to those origins. It helps to know my hairs prickled for a good reason on reading that paragraph because at first sight it all looks so academic, slick and plausible.

I wonder if there are any links to pharmaceutical companies related to this study?

“Lovelyricepudding

I agree that not allowing puberty blockers is not neutral - it is actively protecting children from harm“

Of course I agree, but the way they have put it could mean this section is used to show that not allowing puberty blockers is not neutral at all but harmful conversion.

I agree that not allowing puberty blockers is not neutral - it is actively protecting children from harm.