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

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.

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')

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.

t seemed to conclude that it made for better psychological outcomes

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

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.

@Thingybob

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?

She was a student of politics & international relations at the time she met Obama! No medical qualifications whstsoever! Who in their right mi dvthinks

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!

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?

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

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 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!