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/

Tendentious drivel is their stock in trade,

I couldn't possibly comment about how I see a certain posters posts without being banned! Can I use their own words I wonder?

Just say 'arse juice'.

We'll know what you mean.

That explains the historic popularity of snuff.

Thanks for that @DadJoke . I don't usually read other people's editorialising, as you say, because, well, it's open to interpretation (which is why I also ignore Erin's summary).
Looking at the raw files, it's hard to say there's anything wrong with it. Is there any actual false quotation?
The things I'm looking for are usually topics taken out of context where only part of the conversation has been used for an edit. I don't think there's any of that in there either...

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'.

This.

It's very telling about the nature of their "concern" for vulnerable people.

But we don't need Dadjoke's input to discuss these WPATH leaks. It's not like we're hanging on his every word. If he wants to dismiss them, that's up to him. It remains to be seen what the fallout will be, whatever TRAs think and how many self important "debunking" things they write.

I'd go so far as to suggest that concern for the vulnerable is very low on their list of priorities. The vulnerable appear to be exploited rather than protected - especially when you look at comments on here from those dismissing the appalling revelations from WPATH.

Indeed. The exploitation of the vulnerable is very clear in the dismissal of their situation.

The inability to see the red flags or the abject dismissal of those concerns is very telling.

exploitation is a good fit for what is happening.

I have also been trying to find out if the Guardian have covered this. I sent a message to their international news desk saying they seem to have missed the story. I'm not sure what part of the Guardian's coverage this would fall under. I might see if I can contact their health correspondent.

No health correspondent. I have messaged their society email contact.

Health editor: https://www.theguardian.com/profile/andrew-gregory

Guardian editorial today included ‘cheering for giving women a place in history’ on including more women in Wikipedia pages. Just how on earth can they square that with an inability to define what a woman is in the first place?

What is the point after all the TWAW reporting and chastising by the likes of Zoe Williams on any attempt by women and girls to retain the right to SSS’s? When they won’t report on these leaks that shine a light on the active harms being done to vulnerable girls and young women?

The ‘dog not doing it for you’ as a response to infertility made me want to weep with rage. The fucking arrogant man. And The Guardian remains complicit in its silence. But the paper is so shamefully hostage to its so called liberal staff that it now won’t/can’t backtrack.

It’s made it into the guardian!

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/09/disturbing-leaks-from-us-gender-group-wpath-ring-alarm-bells-in-nhs

HOLY MOLY

The Observer was always better at covering this stuff but maybe from here it will get into the weekday Guardian too….

Ah I was too excited to notice it was the observer!

Good to see the truth and reality about the dangerous WPATH being represented in the Observer. This scandal is not going to go away.

No. And I'm hoping lots of journalists worldwide are doing lots of digging into WPATH.

My initial modest proposal after reading this:

The views of WPATH matter to the UK. For years, the organisation and its SOC have been cited as a source of “best practice” for trans healthcare by numerous medical bodies, including the British Medical Association and the General Medical Council – and still is. The Royal College of Psychiatrists refers to WPATH in its own recommendations for care.
The problem is not necessarily the discussions themselves, but that the organisation is not so open when speaking publicly. Most relevant is that WPATH is cited as “good practice” in the current service specifications underpinning youth and adult gender clinics in England and Scotland, albeit in both cases it is WPATH’s previous SOC that is mentioned. The most recent version does away with all age limits from the beginning of puberty for hormones and surgical interventions, other than female to male genital surgery, and contains a chapter on eunuchs.

• Anyone who was on a BMA, GMC, RCP or other relevant panel or committee that drew up guidelines citing WPATH as "best practice"
• * or was on another (later?) version of the panel or committee that didn't challenge them should automatically resign
• ditto for anyone working in the clinics that implemented WPATH's SOC as "good practice" without protest
• * ditto for any current oversight boards that have signed off on WPATH's SOC for their current service specification.
• Anyone who doesn't resign should have a conversation in which it's laid out to them why they should resign.
• Anyone who still doesn't resign should have their engagement terminated with immediate effect for bringing the organisation into disrepute and occasioning reputational harm.
• The organisations need to apologise and,
• * depending on reputational risk and how far this goes launch internal inquiries and consider whether they need to invite external experts to scrutinise them for transparency.

I may have more immoderate proposals when my anger moves from an ember to a fuller burn.

ETA: I had sub-bullets that initially showed up in the edit but not after posting. Anything with a * should be read as a sub-bullet.

Note that Nottingham Centre proudly and openly links to SoC 8, the current version with the Eunuch chapter. And the link to 'child sex abuse imagery'.

That is NHS Scotland's description, for anyone desperate to report. I'm quoting them, see post upthread.

I find it surprising that when NHS Scotland was found to have hosted SoC 8 on their website, with the links to the Eunuch Archive and the 'child sex abuse imagery', there was an immediate press outcry, they pulled the website, and mounted an investigation.

Yet Nottingham Centre still promotes the SoC 8.

Why is that?

Forgive me, I've had a lengthy day of reviewing and my usual diplomatic filter is all used up.

Nottingham Centre, Sandyford, the relevant bits of NHS Scotland, NHS England, NHS Wales, possibly the Dept. of Health and Social Care in NI etc., all the panels and committees of the professional organisations who permitted this—they can all get in the sack/sea/[insert anything from which they will not return].

Nottingham Centre still promotes the SoC 8.

Why is that?

All my worst fears about what regional networks would be for the new services. That's what it means.

I need to see what GOSH and Alder Hey put out.

There's some harrowing stuff in there, but this is almost so ubiquitous I really feel it's the root of a lot of harm:

"A therapist describes talking to parents after they meet with a medical doctor.

“I would go in, and say, ‘Okay, so tell me what you learned.’ They would be like, ‘We have no idea what they were talking about.’"

Literally not knowing what people mean when they use the words they do is really harmful.

We've seen it daily over the years. "Ok, you don't want to define it, but when you use this term, what do you understand it to mean?" is constantly ignored. It's even on this thread - what did you understand by this? -go ask the author.

Just words being passed around like a meme with no care about what it means in the real world.