WPATH SOC8

I cannot seem to copy and paste lines so took some screen shots of some worrying sections.

In one I was wondering why the general description of adolescent development does not mention autistic girls, who would not match the description given yet are disproportionately affected by gender dysphoria.

In another, mentioning Human Rights, it is chilling to see gender transitioning as ‘part of normal diversity’; and that not allowing puberty blockers is ‘not neutral’; and the right to decide for themselves is endorsed by Amnesty.

Another has the DSD thrown in about midway down the paragraph.

The statement under Human Rights, at the end of that chapter, that adolescents have the right to decide what happens to them, and Amnesty International is cited.

There is something else they can't do that you didn't list - consent to sex....

“Lovelyricepudding

We mustn't forget that WPATH is a lobby group that also provides marketing/sales to trans businesses.“

Clearly. But very well disguised.

I am no expert, and probably many if you must be to even know about this, but having skimmed through the Ist Chapter Adolescents, I noted:

• “Assigned at birth”, and instantly think they are invested in the whole idea of transitioning.

• A sentence about how a biological basis and neurological basis for people questioning their gender assigned at birth can be found from people with DSD.

Aren’t they in a category of their own.

• The statement under Human Rights, at the end of that chapter, that adolescents have the right to decide what happens to them, and Amnesty International is cited.

This is not true if they have anorexia or suicidal or self- harming wishes. I’m fact there are any number of things they can’t do just because they want to including very mundane things. They aren’t even allowed to drive or vote.

This is partly an academic industry.

We mustn't forget that WPATH is a lobby group that also provides marketing/sales to trans businesses.

I’m just skimming the puberty blockers section. This edition was promised to be the first to be developed on an “evidence based approach” yet they still recommend puberty blockers. One of the papers quoted is Jack Turban’s joke of a publication. They haven’t changed at all. It’s still ideologically based, not evidenced based.

You can certainly see what might be in it for cosmetic surgeons...

Presumably the significant, compelling reasons to take an individualised approach means providing these drugs and surgeries at an even younger age? And I guess the compelling reason would include "because I want it" or possibly "because if you don't do as I say I will kill myself"

Any chance of a substantial set of evidenced research to back this up?

I suppose we would need to do a compare with the original. It's quite stark seeing all that medical intervention laid out for teens.