I still find it mind exploding that a poster can think they have any credibility discussing the 'motivations', 'methods', and 'funding' of the people who compiled the document when they are defending WPATH.
Who the fuck thinks that WPATH's motivations at this stage is for the best child health outcome? And their 'methods' have already been proven to have such weak conclusions that country after country's health organisations have done reviews and declared that they are harmful. Even the WHO. In fact, a German team released a similarly updated but just as damning review in the past fortnight.
And funding ... you have to be fucking kidding that someone could think that WPATH's funding is without the same criticism being thrown at the organisation who published this document.
"looked at the motives, funding and methods of the authors and found them lacking, further analysis is not required" is pure fuckwittery. And it is highly hypocritical.
And not just WPATH, but the poster is defending known extreme trans activists who have recognisable history in writing falsehoods and on their own websites. So, not a person with experience who was tasked to produce a document, but known extreme transgender rights activists who have established their own evidence free zones to publish.
However, I read the articles and did not dismiss them because of who wrote them. I read the articles and analysed the content on its merits. Because that is what mature independent thinking people do. Read the original source and analyse it.
DadJoke if you genuinely cannot read the subject at hand, can I please ask that you at least admit it and then stop tossing in ridiculous ad hom attacks at the people who have.