I have been thinking about the dismissal of the report that 'any random person can post on the forum' and I cannot work out how those using this dismissal think that this is a good point to raise.
Are they then saying that anyone can join and then post falsities or gross misrepresentations or horrific distortions which then influence the clinicians on that forum? As in, they will post made up case studies and named clinicians comment on it without knowing who it is they are commenting to?
How would those known and identifiable clinicians then changes their posts if they thought that that case posted was fake?
And none of the known clinicians have stated that the leaked screengrabs were faked in any way. The only complaint was that the screengrabs were 'out of context'. Which on reading the grabs, is an irrelevant complaint. Because what context would improve what has been posted?
So, either this is a meaningless complaint mean to appeal to someone who has not read the report. Or there is a major issue around what the fuck clinicians are posting in response to a known security issue of false posters that WPATH know about and have not dealt with to protect the clinicians from?
Which is it?
And why do posters, such as dadjoke, believe the outcome of those 'random WPATH users' is in any way a good thing to declare?