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/

How is it promising?

Up to now they've technically only ever been prescribable as part of research as they are being used off label.

The problem has been no one actually did research, not followed it up nor asked questions about why experimental off label drugs were ever prescribed in this way without the research.

Susie Green said about what they did to Jackie being experimental.

It's still weasel wording.

The new commissioning services to replace GIDS come onstream in April, I think.

They may not prescribe the PBs but some young people might well be eligible for this study although I don't know when it will be recruiting.

Professor Emily Simonoff has been confirmed as Chief Investigator and will now lead on developing the detailed proposal for the planned research on puberty suppressing hormones in early onset gender dysphoria.

https://www.england.nhs.uk/commissioning/spec-services/npc-crg/gender-dysphoria-clinical-programme/implementing-advice-from-the-cass-review/cyp-gender-dysphoria-research-oversight-board/

I don’t get it. Why are they saying this?

Thanks for the link. It's a step.

It used to be,I saw the first couple of series.

Another great post from @RedToothBrush

I think there are a lot of women on FWR who have had an experience where the world hasn't been perfect and they've had their 'innocence' shattered in some way.

This is certainly true of me and it’s caused some problems between me and my children as they are entirely unable to see some of the consequences and problems that seem obvious to me.

Someone up thread mentioned the Farms (re Erin Reed) so I went for a wee nosey and found many horrified and outraged people on the Farms who have read/are reading the WPATH Files. And they’re even discussing how to spread the word, encourage press uptake etc and for Farmers that’s rare behaviour - as a group they tend to stand back and observe or laugh at events. But it’s the callous horror of what’s being done to children that’s shocked them out of the usual cynicism.

This leads me to echo their sentiment - why are mainstream media outlets and why are governments ignoring this new information? Why does each successive piece of information that confirms the terrible things that are happening get discussed for a day or two and then sink without much fuss? What will it take to shake people out of their complacency? How much horror can people tolerate before they do something? We’re a large number of people, standing and pointing urgently at what’s happening (and what KEEPS happening) and we’re being ignored….why?

Cui bono?

How does one find the farms? Google doesn’t help!

I use Startpage.com as my search engine and it gave me a link to Kiwi Farms as the second search result. Hope that’s useful info 👍

I think they are using .st currently.
Make sure the 'farm' bit is plural or you'll be learning a lot about growing kiwis!

Jessie Singal and Katie Herzog have made a podcast episode about the WPATH leaks but sadly they’ve made it a subscriber-only episode:

https://www.blockedandreported.org/p/premium-top-surgery-without-nipples

I couldn't find this thread, sorry, so many a new one.

somethings happening on the WPATH website.

WPATH deletes standards of Care v8" from its website! www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/5031649-wpath-deletes-standards-of-care-v8-from-its-website

I think it deserves its own thread as well.

Definitely can have its own thread and be mentioned far and wide and let the sunshine in.

Either they have had a major website issue or they are desperately attempting to reverse ferret from the breezy 'no comment' statement. I don't know how any one can continue to defend them as an organisation to be honest.

Very much 👀🍿 right now.

Boysvwomen Twitter has pointed out this:

x.com/boysvswomen/status/1770078045778383308?s=46&t=A2fpFNgDRyXF2d6ye97wEA

It's been rolled back to an earlier version. But someone else says it could be then updated with new content

Interesting thread by Chris Boid (don't know anything about this TwiXer and I've removed some '@' as it leads to formatting problems). This might be worth keeping an eye on as I'd forgotten about Jack Straw's Working Group.

It is 20 years since the introduction of the UK 2004 Gender Recognition Act and I am taking my turn to reflect on the lobbying and debate surrounding this legislation that has contributed to significant and ongoing harm to women, girls, same sex attracted people and children.

This will be a critical review that will span many posts over many days and weeks and I hope it can help the UK people better understand the issues, the impacts and what they can do to improve the situation. Feedback welcome.

My point of entry (I may move back and forward in time depending on where the need takes me) is the UK Home Office ‘Report of the Interdepartmental Working Group on Transsexual People, setup by the Home Secretary Jack Straw (Labour Party) in April 1999 and published in April 2000.

I intend to tackle one section at a time.
ukhomeoffice UK Home Office, REPORT OF THE INTERDEPARTMENTAL WORKING GROUP ON TRANSSEXUAL PEOPLE
docs.scie-socialcareonline.org.uk/fulltext/wgtrans.pdf

The number of falsehoods and manipulation in this tiny opening paragraph should astound you:
X “gender dysphoria” and “gender identity disorder” have been exposed as spurious diagnoses that hide the real issues.
X “gender” is not defined to deliberately confuse it with ‘sex’ to advance gender identity in life and law.
X “biological sex” is used to begin the separation of ‘real’ and ‘legal’ sex to advance gender identity in life and law.
X Retroactive application of adult emotions and behaviour onto children is used to legitimise the spurious diagnoses of “gender dysphoria” and “gender identity disorder”.
X A sweeping and unevidenced statement of there being little chance of regret has been exposed as false.

The conflation of ‘gender’ and ‘sex’ occurs in the very first paragraph of this report. This confusion will be a deliberate, constant and fundamental feature of the advancement of gender identity in society and law. It exploits people’s general understanding that the word ‘gender’ was just a polite synonym for ‘sex’ allowing them to avoid embarrassment due to the term ‘sex’ also being a verb. The “gender” associated with “gender dysphoria” and “gender identity” means something very different, being the sex-based stereotypes of femininity and masculinity. Both of these diagnoses are weak in that they hijack natural child development and same-sex attracted people, reinforcing harmful stereotypes.

Transexualism at its core is the performing and reinforcing of stereotypes to alleviate body dysphoria.
Note the use of “biological sex”. There is no other type of sex yet the “biological” qualifier is used which begins the separation of reality and law regarding sex - a belief of gender identity is that someones subjective feeling of the sex they are is more important than the objective reality of their sex.

Transexualism does not mean a person has changed sex as this is impossible and to think otherwise erodes the very purpose of objective characteristics protected and relied upon in law. Yet 24 years on there are now many people arguing that they have changed “biological sex” and/or that sex defined in law is just a subjective feeling recorded on a piece of paper rather than objective and falsifiable reality. Laws and society built on the understanding that sex is real to the protection of women and girls, same-sex attracted people and the safety of children have been undermined. The knee-jerk reaction to this is to try and define “sex” in law instead of at least defining “gender” but ideally repealing bad law based on “gender”.

This fundamental undermining of law and society is caused by ‘gender identity ideology’. A belief, not an objective characteristic. It is worth noting that not all transexuals believe in gender identity and that the modern ‘transgender’ grouping is, by its very ‘queer theory’ nature, undefinable, containing many different groups, each with their own needs, desires and treatments. Treating such disparate groups together masks the problems and prevents effective remedies, just as it was concluded by the UK Civil Service that BAME (Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic) was an unuseful grouping, more for politicking than solving real challenges.
…
It is important to understand that the definition of “gender dysphoria” is pushed by the discredited World Professional Association of Transgender Healthcare (WPATH) and laundered uncritically around the world through captured organisations like the American Psychiatric Association (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) of Mental Disorders and the World Health Organisation (WHO) International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD). In-country health organisations around the world reference these manuals without performing the due diligence the public and consumers expect.

https://twitter.com/chrisboid/status/1770084532600951025

Gosh…. Dr Cass didn’t think much of the WPATHs work. And referred to it in her report.

Full report

cass.independent-review.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/CassReview_Final.pdf

A summary

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1777834145470693643.html

From the thread reader

“Cass faulted WPATH and the Endocrine Society for “circularity” in their citations to one another. WPATH “cited many of the other national & regional guidelines to support some of its recommendations." But these guidelines were “considerably influenced” by WPATH’s own guidelines.”

And

“The new systematic literature review of the more than 20 pediatric gender care guidelines led the Cass Review to conclude that it could only recommend the Finnish and Swedish guidelines. WPATH and American Academy of Pediatrics got notably low scores”

And

“WPATH recently shifted from a cautious to an enthusiastic support for socially transitioning children. "However," the Cass Review states, "none of the WPATH 8 statements in favor of social transition in childhood are supported by the findings of the" systematic literature review.”

The report says this about WPATH and social transition :

Relevance to existing guidelines

12.28 There has been a shift in
recommendations between PATH 7 (2012), which was more cautious about social transition, and WPATH 8 (2022) which argues in favour of social transition in childhood.

12.29 WPATH 8 justifies this change in stance on the basis that there is more evidence on improved mental health outcomes with social transition, that fluidity of identity is an insufficient justification not to socially transition, and that not allowing a child to socially transition may be harmful.

12.30 However, none of the PATH 8 statements in favour of social transition in childhood are supported by the findings of the University of York's systematic review

So, I am very keen to now see what the most excellent investigative skills and robust logic and evidence interpretation skills of Erin Read comes back with.

I assume it will be something about the difficulties in double blind studies and how that is an impossible standard. And how Cass is now supposedly politically biased. Any bets?

I am very keen also to see the WPATH statement about this.

Someone much more articulate than me once posted a good summary along the lines of

WPATH- WPATH are the leading experts because all of these medical bodies use us as their guidance.

Medical bodies- we use the best guidance from WPATH, who are the leading experts.

Like this but better.

Yes Rock. I think many of us laughed when WPATH released that paltry self reassuring statement after the leaks report. Well, laughed in horror that this is all they had to offer in the face of such blatant failure in their remit and all the harm they have caused.

An article in Unherd on the latest coming out of the Alabama Court case

https://unherd.com/newsroom/wpath-medical-guidelines-plagued-by-conflicts-of-interest/

On conflicts of interest. Do what you get off on love, you'll never work a day in your life and get richly paid for it.

Wpath - If you only consult as your experts those carrying out transitions you will get people who believe in their work and those who don’t or have reservations but do it anyway for the money. You are excluding from your allegedly impartial assessment those who don’t carry out transitions, for ethical reasons. It’s not rocket science and it’s not any other sort of recognisable science either.

I find it amazing that Eli Coleman of WPATH keeps testifying that WPATH have rigorous methodology focused on scientific evidence for everything that went into SOC-8. Coleman does this even after the WPATH Files investigation, plus the Alabama amicus curiae submission, showing the internal workings of WPATH are anything but rigorously methodical or based on scientific evidence.

You just keep telling the same lie...

Thanks. Lots going on in the US right now with this. The Amicus brief at the Supreme Court has now recorded the very disturbing content of the Eunuch Archive that is embedded into WPATHs SoC v 8.

So a trail is starting to be laid down. One would hope that people in the medical and legal fields would note the WPATH links to CSA imagery and start to ask questions.

I beleive it was noted on these boards that the WPATH 8 standards had recommended lower age limits for some interventions in one of the drafts, which were then removed. The documents released in the Alabama case apparently show they were removed at the behest of someone 'in the Biden administration'.

As far as I know no names have been named, but I know which direction my eyes are turning.