NHS Trust hosts link to WPATH Standards of Care on its website

[ArabeIIaScott]

https://www.cntw.nhs.uk/services/northern-region-gender-dysphoria-service-specialist-service-walkergate-park/information-for-professionals/

Cumbria Northumbria, Tyne and Wear. 'Northern Region Gender Dysphoria Service' website.

'We aim to create gender affirmative change with passion'

This is then 'information for professionals' page.

Links to WPATH's standards of care, version 8.

Which contains the 'Eunuch' section positing 'eunuch' as a gender identity, and including link to the Eunuch Archive.

NHS Scotland conducted an investigation after the same 'Standards of Care' were uploaded to one of its internal websites, but it seems NHS England - or at least some trusts - are still referring to them.

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

Archived page here

https://archive.is/nS2i7

'The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) Standards of Care Version 7 (SOCv7)30 represent normative standards for clinical care, acting as a benchmark in this field.31 Globally, many national and local guidelines are adaptations of, acknowledge being influenced by, or are intended to complement WPATH SOCv7,30 despite expressed reservations that WPATH SOCv730 is based onlower-quality primary research, the opinions of experts
and lacks grading of evidence.36 In the UK, an advocacy group worked to incorporate WPATH SOCv730 into national practice.37 WPATH SOCv730 informs National Health Service (NHS) gender identity clinics38 and guidelines produced by the Royal College of Psychiatrists (without use of GRADE).39 No
CPGs were available from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN), British Association of
Gender Identity Specialists, or medical Royal Colleges, although the Royal College of General Practitioners issued a position statement on gender minority/trans healthcare in 2019.40 Assessing quality of international
CPGs such as WPATH SOCv7 30 has practice implications for the NHS 38 and private sector.'

Apologies the formatting is all a bit wonky. Bolding is mine.

This is from 'International clinical practice guidelines for gender minority/trans people: systematic review and quality assessment' in BMJ

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/11/4/e048943

Some more quotes. This review was scathing about the quality of CPGs, including WPATH:

'WPATH SOCv7 cannot be considered ‘gold standard’'

'WPATH SOCv7 originated nearly a decade ago from a special-interest
association; diagnostic criteria and CPG methodology have since changed. ...it is puzzling to have found so little else, maybe suggesting CPGs for gender minority/trans people have been driven by provider-interests rather than healthcare needs.'

'Clinicians should be made aware that gender minority/trans health CPGs outside of HIV-relatedtopics are linked to a weak evidence base, with variations in methodological rigour and lack of stakeholder involvement. While patient care plans ought to take into account the individual needs of each gender minority/trans person, a gap appears to exist between clinical practice and research in this field.78 Clinicians should proceed with caution, explain uncertainties to patients and recruit to research'

That is all of course relating to SoC v 7. Has there been any assessment of SoC v 8 from NICE or NHS?

I see a Rapid Response to that review criticises SoC v 8:

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/11/4/e048943.responses

'It appears WPATH expects readers to faithfully accept potentially biased judgments of the literature rather than confidently submitting SoCv8 to open scientific scrutiny. SoCv8 could have been much better: its evidence base and recommendations cannot yet be relied upon.'

https://www.city-journal.org/article/affirming-deception

'Just two weeks ago, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH)—a U.S.-based promoter of “gender affirmation” that now recognizes “eunuch” as a valid childhood “gender identity”—was still insisting that Europe’s only change was a decision by health authorities to conduct “more studies” and gather data. But with evidence of the actual changes increasingly hard to deny, WPATH has now finally had to reckon with reality. On November 25, it chose to air its grievances—and tacitly concede its previous disinformation campaign—about Europe’s change of direction when it criticized England’s National Health Service.'

Wee bit of history on the NHS/WPATH

Marci Bowers should spend the rest of their days staring at the four walls of a prison cell.

Anyone destroying the healthy bodies of children for money should be looking hard at their conscience.

They don't have a conscience to look at Arabella, they can't have otherwise they wouldn't have done it in the first place.

Yes, you're right, Gail. I forget. 🙄