WPATH SOC8

[Thingybob]

The new standards (draft) are available to view via the survey Monkey links in this document

www.wpath.org/media/cms/Documents/SOC%20v8/SOC8%20Chapters%20for%20Public%20Comment/Letter%20eBlast%20-%20SOC8%20Public%20Comment%20Period%20December%202021%20FINAL.pdf?_t=1638464778

From a brief glance it doesn't look like WPATH have backpedaled at all. From the adolescent chapter it's Tanner Stage 2 for PB then

14 years and above for hormone treatment (estrogens or androgens), unless there are significant, compelling reasons to take an individualized approach, considering the factors unique to the adolescent treatment frame.

15 years and above for chest masculinization; unless there are significant, compelling reasons to take an individualized approach, considering the factors unique to the adolescent treatment frame.

16 years and above for breast augmentation, facial surgery (including rhinoplasty, tracheal shave, and genioplasty) as part of gender affirming treatment; unless there are significant, compelling reasons to take an individualized approach, considering the factors unique to the adolescent treatment frame.

17 and above for metoidioplasty, orchidectomy, vaginoplasty, and hysterectomy and fronto-orbital remodeling as part of gender affirming treatment unless there are significant, compelling reasons to take an individualized approach, considering the factors unique to the adolescent treatment frame.

18 years or above for phalloplasty, unless there are significant, compelling reasons to take an individualized approach, considering the factors unique to the adolescent treatment frame

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.

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?

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

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.

@PaleBlueMoonlight

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.

It was previously 16+ for cross sex hormones and 18+ for any surgical intervention.

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

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.

“Lovelyricepudding

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

Clearly. But very well disguised.

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....

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.

@Lovelyricepudding

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

Yes but they are also self styled global experts who have a huge reach. Previous SOCs have directed service provision, policy and law in the UK (as well as internationally)

Having worked through some of the chapters, SOC8 makes grim reading.

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

“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.

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.

A bit of background on that Amnesty statement, www.amnesty.org.uk/press-releases/amnesty-international-uk-and-liberty-joint-statement-puberty-blockers.

It was written by this Stonewall employee
twitter.com/Maria_Munir/status/1334504574640590848

Seen here speaking to Barrack Obama
www.theguardian.com/world/video/2016/apr/25/the-moment-a-student-told-barack-obama-she-was-non-binary-video

Who in their right mind thinks this 25 year old has the wisdom or expertise to offer an opinion on the use of puberty blockers?

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?

“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’.

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

@Lovelyricepudding

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

Yes they have included as 'evidence' the personal opinion of a young person with obvious issues while ignoring NICE's 131 page evidence review on PBs

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.

@ScrollingLeaves

"The review of GnRH agonists (puberty blockers) makes for sobering reading. Its major finding is that GnRH agonists lead to little or no change in gender dysphoria, mental health, body image and psychosocial functioning. In the few studies that did report change, the results could be attributable to bias or chance, or were deemed unreliable."

segm.org/NICE_gender_medicine_systematic_review_finds_poor_quality_evidence

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?

WPATH is just a collection of people who have skin in the game of spreading gender ideology. So everyone from TRA's to surgeons making a killing from SRS.

Harrop, Webberley and Green are all paid up members.

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

Placemarking :(