WPATH leaks

[PriOn1]

There are a number of articles appearing on Twitter about some leaked files from WPATH. The impending scandal is taking far too long to break, but there are more and more signs that journalists are no longer ignoring the situation.

https://unherd.com/newsroom/leaked-wpath-files-show-gender-clinician-abuses/

Reader's note:

Despite being asked repeatedly to start listing valid errors in the document put together by Mia Hughes, an ex-teacher who has written about safeguarding issues in the past, this poster continues to not be able to discuss this with any confidence at all.

They have continued to double down to hide behind articles for sources that, hypocritically, are self-published and those articles have been shown to have very clear and obvious errors and flaws.

If you notice, this poster has also again resorted to attacking the publisher of the document in an ad hominem attack based on political belief. It is likely to also be false in it extreme positioning of that publisher as 'far-right'. That is a weak argument and it does not address any valid errors, but that is all it seems that this poster has to offer.

The 'based on content posted on a forum anyone can join' dismissal is pure distraction. This poster and Urquhart, an abusive extreme trans activist, amongst other commentators on the subject of this report, are now attempting to portray the clinicians that have posted on that forum as being 'random forum members'. That is probably quite easy to discredit, the publisher just has to publicly expose the clinicians that they sought to protect. And then, of course, these same commentators will hypocritically accuse the publisher of exposing clinicians and potentially their patients.

This is again a very dishonest and weak tactic to discredit a report.

Why has a nonprofit known for downplaying the risks of climate change and undermining renewable energy got involved in the debate and put their name right upfront and centre on this? How might a reputation for spreading misinformation provide an alibi for those who want to dismiss this report? How convincingly can Environmental Progress claim to be on the side of science, evidence & reality?

Massive missed opportunity for this to be taken seriously by the MSM.

Which bits are far right bunk?

Why far right? Why bunk?

The publisher has stated that they have published this report because they wanted to get it out there. They do have a history for compiling information about many issues that are not within the 'environmental' category though. Homelessness, drugs and mental health being some.

I agree that it would be great for MSM to take this issue seriously rather than leaving the issue to other organisations. It would be amazing to see a series of articles tackling the very issues mentioned in this report.

DadJoke · Today 14:41

I have read the article and a lot of the files. There is more than enough in that to show this is far-right bunk based on content posted on a forum anyone can join.

I'll ask again:

Please furnish us with a few examples of erroneous information, with an analysis of what's wrong with said examples. Thanks in advance.

.

@Booliams
From what is published, Michael Shellenberger received the documents from one (or more) whistleblowers, so why him is more a question for whoever leaked the files. WPATH has commented on the leak, and hasn't denied that what was posted is true. The content is also in line with what has been reported from other sources who have attended in the past conferences organised by WPATH or other affiliated association. For example, the Transparency podcast reported on the National Trans Health summit, and the ethos (or lack of) regarding informed consent was the same. Personally, I think the files are authentic.

You may need to start further back: which article is "the article" referred to? We don't actually have confirmation of what - if anything - the PP has read.

Alternatively, there's bound to be a nearby plant to chat to - which would probably be more illuminating.

No, the 72 pages of editorialising, the selective nature of the excerpts and the framing are all written from that perspective. It's then a bunch of bizarrely formatted, unthreaded selective screen shots, redacted, most of which could be from literally anyone. It says nothing in general about WPATH.

@PatatiPatatras if you are asking for a link to the files, here it is.

https://environmentalprogress.org/s/WPATH-Report-and-FilesN.pdf

So, you are unwilling to provide specifics. I see.

Translation: "I'm far too superior and intelligent to help you identify far right material. You shoul educate yourself because I'm too lazy to do so."

AKA

"Theres fuck all there, but hell I'm not going to admit it. Its far easy to make sweeping comments that I refuse to clarify under the guise that its 'too long'"

Funny. It seems there's an issue with trans activists who can't read anything longer than a brief twitter thread.

But the excerpts are all from WPATH yes? No one is arguing about that?

No matter how selectively you think the quoted material has been chosen, you surely cannot think that medical professionals are in the right to perform medical interventions on children who the professionals are stating do not have, and due to developmental needs will never have, the capacity to consent to? Or on adults so mentally ill that they believe there are multiple different people existing in their head? Or performing surgeries which require hygiene measures on homeless people?

How can you defend this stuff? If you care about gender questioning people, why aren't you appalled at this?

It's not fair, it's not right, it's awful! A Nazi has cherry picked a huge amount of information, which WPATH has produced and used it to make them look bad, by using their own words. It's so unfair and such a nasty Nazi lie, to reproduce all this factual matter, just to be a smelly Nazi transphobe. So there!

Yep... there is that 'it is redacted' line.

Question is dadjoke if they had have published the names, and you could check their credentials, would you start showing any concern at all about the patients being described and those horrifically impacted by the guidelines that WPATH have convince organisations to adopt based on what has become clear are lies and experiments being conducted ad hoc on unsuspecting patients?

I have to say, from your continued twisting and deflecting here, the answer seems it would be still 'no'!

Because you cannot even summon the curiosity to question this. All you are doing is deflection and dismissal.

Just admit it. You could not show any less concern for what is happening to children.

The defence purely rests on 'it could be anyone posting these scenarios and questions'.

FFS we already have seen at least one trans person who has posted that they recognise their own clinician's comments in those files. But apparently, could be just all random's from the internet joining WPATH to discredit them....

So randoms from the internet were posting questions on the WPATH forum for a laugh, and then other randoms from the internet were posting answers, also for a laugh, and WPATH forum mods were leaving them up for... reasons? Though the answers are all totally on brand for what we know of WPATH and it's members' views and approaches?

Why don't they just say 'a big boy did it and ran away'?

This is the level of thinking in that dismissal tactic, yes.

I guess if you are so able to believe falsities such as 'people can change sex', you are already predisposed to believe such falsehoods. It is remarkable though to see it in action from someone who thinks they are righteous.

Michael Shellenberger was involved in The Twitter Files scandal. He has also done investigative journalism into the drugs and homelessness problems in some American cities. That's probably what most people know of him for

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/TwitterFiles

How can you defend this stuff? If you care about gender questioning people, why aren't you appalled at this?

I don't know how anyone can read what happened to the 23 year old that tragically died as a result of this ''healthcare'' and still defend it.

Imagine that this wasn't a transgender patient, if a news story broke about a surgeon who'd operated on a very young, mentally unwell, vulnerable, autistic non-transgender person for cosmetic, not lifesaving, purposes. And bodged it so badly that that person's colon was discharging through their surgical wound that was sealing up due to scar tissue. And all that patient could do about it was accept their impending death at 23. The patient had only wanted this cosmetic surgery in the first place because they'd sadly believed the lies sold to them by unethical, money-grabbing surgeons and doctors.

There'd be uproar. Disgust. People asking what the actual fuck that surgeon was thinking, performing such an unnecessary procedure on such a vulnerable young person. Calling for him to be struck off.

But because this happened to a patient that identified as trans, it's all 'nothing to see here', or 'only far-right meanies have a problem with this'.

Why? Why does 'trans' = having to accept this appalling, shitty Russian roulette style ''healthcare''? How the hell is it 'punching down' to say that these poor people deserve so much fucking better than this?

Hear hear!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-13168281/INFLUENTIAL-transgender-health-doctors-activists-shape-NHS-policies.html

I just tried searching for 'WPATH' on the Guardian website. As far as I could see, the most recent entry was from 2016.

Re: Daily Mail item.

Former Tavistock director, Dr Bernadette Wren, told the Women and Equalities Committee in 2015 the clinic's protocols were 'based on WPATH guidelines which are almost universally observed in Europe'.
At the time Tavistock was the largest provider of transgender services in England – it is currently earmarked for closure, to be replaced by regional hubs, this year.
NHS guidance documents for staff, published in 2013, repeatedly make reference to WPATH and state they are 'informed' by the organisation's seventh edition of its guidance.
Contracts for NHS England's Gender Identity Development Service, covering 2016-2020, state services 'will be delivered in line with… relevant national and international guidelines for the care of children and adolescents with GD such as the World Professional Association for Transgender Health Standards Of Care'.

[In a linked piece, Craggs attempts to coerce GP practice into authorising GIDS-endorsed hormone prescription of 6mg oestrogen which is a high dose.]

Ms Craggs, who first rose to public fame in a BBC Three documentary called Transitioning Teens, said the GP did this despite her informing them who she was.

I am the Grinch of the trans community,' she said.
'They know this as well because I said on the phone "I'm Charlie Craggs I have a Wikipedia page".'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-13126473/Trans-influencer-BBC-actor-moved-London.html

Who'd have thought telling a GP or receptionist about your Wikipedia page wouldn't be an effective and persuasive tactic?🤔

That's an excellent report in the Mail. What a shame that the BBC, Guardian etc no longer employ knowledgeable journalists able to manage challenging material like this
(irony alert)

I think one of the most depressing aspects of this us that there are people so wedded to this ideology that they will simply never be able to see it for what it is. They can't even muster a pretence of consideration about the grotesque experiments conducted on that poor young person upthread.