NHS Scotland links to Eunuch Archive

[Hagiography]

The Lead Clinician of the National Gender Identity Clinical Network for Scotland just gave evidence to the Scottish Govt committee on Gender Reform this morning.

The NGICNS links to WPATH documents for information.

www.ngicns.scot.nhs.uk/information/wpath/

One of these is documents is titled 'Eunuch'. This is a pdf that includes a link to the 'Eunuch' Archives, which WPATH describes as the source of the 'greatest wealth of information' on eunuch identified people.

The Eunuch Archives have been investigated by reporters from Reduxx. Reduxx seems to be down at the moment, but their article is archived here:

web.archive.org/web/20220606014846/reduxx.info/top-trans-medical-association-collaborated-with-castration-child-abuse-fetishists/

Content warning: references to CSA

I know I read WarriorN's post, but I can't remember what she said. Surely it wasn't that controversial? I mean, we have NHS Scotland linking to an archive of fictional fantasising about child abuse, so what was that bad here?!

Yeah, that's new.

Let's not forget that Action for Trans Health were invited to give evidence for Maria Millers
Report on the women and equalities committee consultation.

When was that? 2015?

This has been going on for years. None of it has been stopped or even addressed.

What?!So anything controversial and potentially upsetting has to be removed now?
I've been here around 16 years and have never seen that before.
If that.s new policy, MNHQ will be very busy going forward!

I'm uneasy about the concept of "controversial information". I am going to have to think about this. I've always unthinkingly conceptualised that something had to be true, in order to qualify as "information".

I'm uneasy about the concept of "controversial information".

There's a thing in the US censorship regime - you've probably heard of "misinformation" and "disinformation", but the big new thing is "malinformation".

It might have been one of those - "true, but bad".

Unless the link went directly to the disgusting paedophile forum or similar - I could understand that, but the message should clearly say that.

If it's 'upsetting' (as if the other reports aren't?! That's why we're posting about it?!) maybe a trigger warning would suffice?

So they did, Datun.

I am presuming this post on the consultation (2016) written by Jess was written by Jess Bradley, who vanished after being caught flashing at work?

actionfortranshealth.org.uk/tag/transgender/

So the government and the NHS have been asking for input from some quite alarming places. For quite some time.

whatisawoman.uk/?page=JessBradley

Mumsnet deciding what is controversial? That’s just control of information? What do they mean controversial? They don’t agree with it - ie who?

Can you tell us what the link was @WarriorN ?

Would it be “users” that get upset or just MONITORS?

I feel a bit as if someone's confiscated my adult library card, and told me I can only borrow from the children's section from now on.

It was the latest Genevieve Gluck sent by @glinner. (Tagging so he's aware they're rocking boats .)

I must say I used to give warnings for this stuff. I'm now just furious that a lobby group with links to really awful sites have this much sway on healthcare for children.

Wpath has a global membership of about 3,000 people, including non-professionals. It is not an official health body, but publishes “standards of care” recommendations for transgender healthcare. from a times article today.

It was the latest Genevieve Gluck sent by @glinner. (Tagging so he's aware they're rocking boats .)

As I recall Glinner's Substack already achieved the distinction of a complete site-wide block on Reddit, thanks to revealing too much about the Challenors. Is that still in force?

It's entitled "The second part of Genevieve Gluck's investigation" and umm, yes, has similarities to that situation. Different people.

Sorry not similarities to that situation, more akin to Bradley.

Times article on WPATH The Times today on wpath www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4570831-the-times-today-on-wpath

Gluck has essentially exploded (accused?) some people who are supposed to be professionals of some pretty damning stuff. So that might be why it's sensitive.

*exposed

1000000 x more serious than Bradley.

How the current DSM for this area came into being.

Removal of all gatekeeping.

I'm not awake yet. 🤪

Yeah, me neither. Thanks, Warrior.

Thanks @WarriorN . Hope NHS Scotland and the SNP are listening. Nothing other than outright paedophilia.

As for Marci Bowers. I never watched the Jazz Jennings show but I searched the episode. To see a medical Dr examining and photographing this young person and commenting that they could be a porn star is stomach turning.With a room full of people all laughing and sniggering. I've now fallen down the rabbit hole of her show and all I can think is how exploited Jazz has been. Terrible.

Scotsman:

www.scotsman.com/health/investigation-launched-after-documents-published-by-scottish-nhs-in-error-stated-that-eunuch-should-be-recognised-as-formal-identity-3734369

Looks like the NGICNS site has been taken down altogether.

www.ngicns.scot.nhs.uk/

I HOPE THE SCOTGOV GRR COMMITTEE ARE PAYING ATTENTION.

GIDS seem to base their treatment of gender dysphoric patients on WPATH's standards of care.

gids.nhs.uk/professionals/evidence-base/

Hence lack of evidence base that has been through rigorous research. And no rigorous record keeping of the experimental approaches of the "treatment."