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/

@Vebrithien inspired me!

👏
👏
👏

Brilliant.
There's a tsunami of people horrified at what's happening to children - their children, their neighbour's children, their grandchildren, nieces, nephews, brothers and sisters. Illegally using experimental medicine on children was always going to be noticed. Socially grooming children that their bodies are flawed and need fixing was always going to be noticed.
I know that the BBC, ITV, guardian etc aren't covering this with their captured LGBT correspondents leading the silencing.

But the rest of the media are & there's a groundswell of horror emerging as the media showcase the male breast feeding fetishes, John Lewis with their staff carrying fetish & bondage gear, the steady stream of murderers and sex offenders claiming to be women and pandered to by the judiciary and the police. And terribly, the thousands of mentally vulnerable children and buying into the false belief that a "sex change" will solve their problems.

As Beetle says upthread, Every single one of these adults pushing this at children should be in prison.

I would be inclined to give the likes of Moyle, et al., the benefit of the doubt and say they were thick as mince, otherwise they would have to be positively evil to knowingly promote this fucking nonsense.

Yes. This.

I often find myself wondering if the person whittling on promoting delusion, harm, injury and prejudice while apparently believing they're on the side of good and righteousness, is just plain very thick or actually evil.

I am just starting to read it. I have a packet of Tim Tams as comfort food. This is devastating to read. The level of zealous adherence to an ideological philosophical belief is palpable.

Most kids are probably grossed out when they learn how babies are made and where they come from.

Unfortunately, these bastards take this very normal, squeamish reaction of children as proof that they will grow up to be fine with being infertile and go ahead and sterilise them.

Someone for the Tavistock (in Bell v Tavistock), when asked about sterilising children and destroying their ability to have orgasms as adults, tried to justify it with ''they might grow up to be asexual''. They think it's fine to sterilise children because they might be asexual when they're older 😡

No wonder SW were trying to push 'asexuality' as the next big thing. Let's try and distract these kids from the harm done to them by this experimental ''healthcare'' by slapping a shiny rainbow label on the side effects (that they were too young to understand and consent to) and telling them how speshul and amazeballs it is.

There's a special place in hell for the lot of them.

Froodwithatowel · Today 15:01

I often find myself wondering if the person whittling on promoting delusion, harm, injury and prejudice while apparently believing they're on the side of good and righteousness, is just plain very thick or actually evil.

I don't think that we can conclude that it's not a combination of the two.

The entire principle of gender ideology - that there exists a gendered 'soul' that should be recognised and that may differ from the body we inhabit - is constructed and defended via a series of motte-and-bailey arguments that proponents seek to retreat to when their weaker arguments are threatened.

It feels like this is a significant defeat of a core premise of the ideology, and one of the easier ones to defend, that this treatment is real, effective and necessary to care for the most vulnerable in society.

It's clear to all, hopefully, that the clinicians and their supporters neither i) understand what it is they are treating, or whether their treatments are acting on a real condition, and ii) have any evidence that their treatments are effective, and that there is any thought or care for the vulnerabilities of their patients at the WPATH level which directs treatment.

I am astounded that so many medical institutions have been allowed to take the recommendations of this bankrupt ideology on trust, when it has been so clear to those of us on the outside that gender ideology is founded on a lie, and that all future endeavours have stemmed from that lie.

This is a good way to describe what has happened on page 17:

The clinical trial stage is imperative to avoid a phenomenon called runaway diffusion, “whereby the medical community mistakes a small innovative experiment as a proven practice, and a potentially non beneficial or harmful practice ‘escapes the lab,’ rapidly spreading into general clinical settings.”

Runaway diffusion is what happened with pediatric gender medicine. Based on a study group of just 55 participants, which suffered from high selection bias, and a study design so methodologically flawed that its results should have been completely invalidated, the international medical community began suppressing the puberty of adolescents suffering from gender dysphoria. The vital step of undertaking controlled research aimed at validating the hypothesized substantial and enduring psychological advantages was completely skipped.

In fact, as early as 2001, WPATH, then HBIGDA, endorsed the treatment in its Standards of Care 6, even though, at that time, the scientific evidence for the protocol consisted of just a single case study involving one young patient.

Then, before the second stage of the deeply flawed Dutch experiment had been completed, WPATH again endorsed the treatment in its Standards of Care 7 in 2012, thereby influencing the medical community and leading to the widespread adoption of the protocol.64 The speed of the runaway diffusion increased dramatically when the innovative medical experiment collided with the sudden surge of adolescents identifying as transgender in the mid-2010s.

It was so obvious what they were doing. Attaching asexuality to the list was incredibly irresponsible given that along side being a sexuality, it can also be a symptom of illness and something that should be allowed to be explored without it being seen as conversion therapy. I actually think.its probably the one sexuality kids would struggle to understand and differentiate how they are feeling vs sexuality vs being a kid and it being normal.to not want to know/care/think about it.

We all knew this was happening, but seeing the worst horrors confirmed is somehow so shocking it has knocked me sick.

I should have been prepared for it.

I wasn't.

I've always thought it ought to be better known that the WPATH was founded in the late 1970s as the Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association. (I haven't read the report yet, but I expect this is covered in it.)

It was named after an early gender practitioner and the name change to WPATH happened in 2007, according to Sex Matters. They didn't end up being called the World Professional Association for Transgender Health because various national bodies and (say) European, Asian, American associations agreed they needed a world level group. It's top down. If clinicians all over the world were being asked to abide by standards set by the Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association they might perhaps ask who put this group in charge. But the name WPATH makes it sound as if clinicians all over the world are at the bottom of a pyramid of care with national groups on the level above and WPATH at the top.

https://sex-matters.org/posts/publications/wpath-in-the-uk/#:~:text=In%20the%20same%20year%2C%20Press,more%20client%2Dcentred%20emphasis%E2%80%9D.

See also: Yogyakarta Principles. The high-faluting name makes it sound as if all the nations of the world came together to discuss these issues and agree on the principles, but this is not the case at all. The UN has consistently refused to endorse them, for all the good that's done us. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yogyakarta_Principles

Thing is, we all know (unfortunately) that the people who have pinned their Righteous identities to this ideology will suffer a most miraculous case of visual and aural failure, and have to take to their beds for a brief period, until the immediate public outrage blows over. Then they'll be right back, mendaciously claiming that this is all gloriously life-saving, reversible, harmless, and above all Kind.

Unless I've somehow overlooked it, not a peep on the BBC news website yet. This a is a huge story if your beat is 'identity' (I believe they at least two correspondents) but they seem reluctant to delve into the deeper social, legal, political issues on this topic.

This is also well described on page 31:

'In response to a post by a Washington DC psychologist about a “distraught and angry” 17-year-old detransitioned girl who had been on testosterone for more than two years and felt she was “brainwashed,” several WPATH members appear in the replies. There is talk of detransition being just another step in a patient’s “gender journey” and not necessarily involving regret. By this self-serving logic, it is impossible for clinicians practicing the affirmative model to ever be wrong in their diagnosis or treatment decisions. The notion of the “gender journey” to describe regret and detransition is used to insulate gender-affirming clinicians from criticism and accountability. Within the realm of gender-affirming care, as long as the healthcare provider affirms the regret and detransition phase as part of the “journey,” any potential errors or misjudgments are considered acceptable.'

Although, this sucks

'As well, on more than one occasion, the WPATH members pass the blame to the young person. Another psychologist talks of a female patient who is still in high school and has decided to detransition, claiming that the girl “acknowledges that [she] was the driver in getting [her] to this point.” WPATH President Bowers then echoed this psychologist’s opinion, stating that all medical treatments have regret rates that are typically much higher than for gender transition, and “patients need to own and take active responsibility for medical decisions, especially those that have potentially permanent effects.”'

In fact, there is at least one poster that rarely posts on FWR (only if a thread is moved) who declares they have a doctorate in a gender related field who often makes a statement about regret rates being less than other treatments.

I think it was the sheer quantity of proof in one document. It was just overwhelming.

You're right, it's not new information. But it's new evidence. The leaked
documents are evidence that WPATH knew about dangers and the lack of consent and discussed them among themselves, things they did not discuss with patients or families. And they put pressure on each other to treat regardless. That's real evidence of real malpractice. And it's solid enough for the mainstream press not just online.

I have heard it said that consent/negligence cases in the US are going to be
very difficult because those carrying out these treatments were following WPATH guidelines and WPATH were considered to be offering the gold standard of care.

The past may not be fixable but it's going to be a lot easier to sue over any
treatment decisions made from now on.

Now I understand why Michael Shellenberger was talking about the end of WPATH at the Genspect conference when I watched online in late 2023. I thought it was wishful thinking but he had the leaked material.

This will be a must watch on Sunday and needs sharing far and wide.
GBNews gets a lot of criticism and a lot of it is justified.
However Andrew Doyle has done amazing work there. He's been brave, bold and true. I very much doubt the BBC with its all singing all dancing Identity Unit, ITVNews with Paul Brand at the helm will even cover it.
I hope it's a brilliant episode, I hope they enter it for news awards and I hope it bloody wins.
And if you're one of those people who won't watch GBNews well just this once, give it a chance.

Are you seriously comparing an effective vaccine against a pandemic virus that hospitalised one of my colleagues to cross-sex hormones and surgery on minors?

Funny because I always read it as "woopath"

What a line-up that is. It frustrates me so much that UK public service broadcasters have abdicated their responsibility on this issue to inform public debate in a constructive way (with a few honourable exceptions).

Anyone reading or has read this pick up just how many trans identified clinicians are involved? Surely that should be ringing alarm bells ? Talk about heavy personal investment.

And I don't think they particularly like the 'cisgender' medical people who just won't be able to understand!

Ignoring the fact most brain surgeons have never had brain tumours of their own! And most gynacological consultants are male and therefore have zero experience of periods.

This shows the level of ideological thinking in the group. Incredible to think that they were not discussing the ethics, but policing language of surgeries that go beyond 'extreme' body modifications such as the nullifications and the adding of body cavities while there is also a working penis....

page 49

'When Dr. Thomas Satterwhite, a renowned California surgeon, asks for the group’s input for “non-standard” procedures such as “top surgery without nipples, nullification, and phallus-preserving vaginoplasty,” no one raised any ethical questions about the destruction of perfectly healthy reproductive organs to fulfill customized body modification desires. Instead, members of the group policed Satterwhite’s language, with one therapist arguing that such procedures could also be “selected by those with binary gender identities;” another therapist who identifies as non-binary agreed and called his language “cisgenderist,” and a trans-identified natal female med school student stressed the importance of “de-gendering” sex-trait modification procedures. In the SOC8, these procedures are euphemistically referred to as “individually customized” surgeries.'

and later

'The professor, who has previously described “trans embodiment as a free-form artistic expression of gender,” and believes teenagers should have the right to treat their body like a “gendered art piece,”214 demonstrates the flawed beliefs held within WPATH when claiming that transgender health care is about creating bodies that “challenge cisnormativity.”

“Trans health is about bodily autonomy, not normalizing bodies,” said the activist professor in the files. “We didn’t reject the idea that you can’t change your gender only to double down on the idea that gender is binary and defined by genitals.”'

Fuck! That is grim. How can this thinking be ethical? Teenagers!

It's been said before that children were needed to legitimise middle aged adult men transitioning.

This is despite the fact that this disproportionately impacted on young girls - women and girls transitioned in exceptionally low numbers before the runaway diffusion tipping point.

Runaway diffusion is more likely to happen if there is an ideological preference for a certain outcome.

There's an example I've talked about on MN a few times. For years CS were discouraged and it was felt they shouldn't go over a certain rate. Why? Because a WHO study said in its conclusion that there was a greater risk from CS. Except that's not even what this study actually said. The study data showed that a planned CS was actually ever so slightly safer than a planned VB. Minimally so, but nonetheless, even though that's what the data said the conclusion was written up to state the extra opposite! Why? Because there was an ideological preference from WHO to restrict CS and this was a really inconvenient study (the truth is whether a CS or a planned VB is safer is a lot more complex than the remit of this study, but it's still what the data was saying and the conclusion should have reflected).

What we STILL have is two very different demographics who transition. Teenage girls and much older men. The reasons are also not the same. And in every reasonable evidence based medical study, the differences are something you would look very closely at because it suggests there are two completely different things going on which are potentially totally unrelated.

Instead being trans has been lumped into one single monolith driven by the more privileged group of adults men over and above the interests of minors, particularly girls, who often have questionable ability to fully consent never mind lobby government and other organisations.

You don't have to be able to take a study apart to be able to see these dynamics are troublesome and should be being addressed.

In whose interest is it to pathologise children in this way? Who benefits ideologically and financially? Who benefits in terms of their health?