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/

At 14 I found myself wondering why I didn't fancy any of the famous blokes of my time. I just didn't get It. It didn't kick in until I was probably 16.

I could have been labelled as asexual. That wouldn't have been true. I just wasn't old enough.

This is about trying to sexualise kids before they've reached sexual maturity and if they haven't reached it by x age its easy to just right them off as asexual and act against their interests as a result.

It's gross.

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

I think this is probably spot on. Excellent post all round @RedToothBrush

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

Indeed, I remember detailing this for several people I discussed this with about 4 years ago now. They were horrified I said it and then after I explained how and why and the Denton's report etc etc they understood.

Genevieve Gluck has posted a short film by Reduxx about some of the eunuch fetishists who have been advising WPATH. This is getting murkier with every passing hour and makes me wonder what the hell else is going to come out.

https://twitter.com/WomenReadWomen/status/1764946004078641621

I've just been reading some of the stuff on twatter about this and came here to ask if anyone else was reminded of the old song "Three Wheels on my Wagon". I'm now thinking that they're down to just the one wheel.

It's been like watching a slow motion car crash for years. Painfully slow.

It's on a prolonged holiday with "without fear or favour"

Any reaction from TRAs or the gender industry yet?

This may be one of the biggest health care scandals of the 21st century. I really hope the truth gets out before more harm is done. And my heart goes out to all the vulnerable people who've really been experimented on without knowing the possible consequences.

It beggars belief. Why not let 10 year olds drive? Or let 12 year olds ‘consent’ to sex? Why have age limits for drinking alcohol or smoking cigarettes? Why can’t a prepubescent teen consent to donating a lung?

How can any medical practitioner support those measures but then turn around and declare that a 13 year old should ‘own and take responsibility for medical decisions’.

Someone mentioned incandescent rage at these absolute bastards. That’s about right.

Yes. This too. ^^ So heartbreaking at the thought of all the vulnerable children and young adults being actively harmed this very minute by the adults who are meant to be safeguarding them.

Our usual friends on the board are unseasonably quiet, too...

Jesus wept!

It's even worse than I ever imagined.

Yes. What I got from it all is that these clinicians are fully prepared to say they explained it all and that they told the children's parents and that the maintain that it is all led by the child, while then drawn false analogies with diabetes treatments and regret for elective cosmetic surgeries that are superficial. It is all 'let's see what happens so we can progress this field of medicine' while hiding behind this false consent model and telling each other that they know children cannot really understand.

Do the regulars remember the poster, another 'regular' who declared that it really didn't matter if a child lost the ability to feel pleasure in sex or even have pain free sex when they reached maturity. Because 'asexual' was a legitimate sexual orientation and these children might be 'asexual'. I remember who it was, but I wonder if other's remember that bonkers post. I have not seen that poster venture on this thread as yet. But they are posting on others as we speak. But THAT is the type of sick dismissal that I was reminded of while reading this document today.

Why not let 10 year olds drive? Or let 12 year olds ‘consent’ to sex? Why have age limits for drinking alcohol or smoking cigarettes? Why can’t a prepubescent teen consent to donating a lung?

The consent thing is all-important.

If they can get it into law that a 4 yo (or even younger) can decide which "gender" they are, to the extent that it warrants social transition and then puberty blockers and then cross-sex hormones and radical, life-altering surgery, and that the child CAN CONSENT TO IT. then they can argue that if children can "consent" to this, they can "consent" to sexual relationships with adults.

Edited for clarity because the sentence was convoluted

This whole ideology is so warped. Sterilising children is never healthcare-never. As for nullification....or creating a neovagina & keeping a phallus ....what is going on here? Its grown mens sexual fantasies

Sarah Vine on WPATH files (It's DM+ but you will find a snapshot on the usual archiving sites):

They reveal how medics advocating the use of puberty-blocking drugs were well-aware of the potential long-term harms of such treatment, including infertility and cancer, and that they also knew that in some cases patients were too young or too mentally ill to fully appreciate the consequences of their treatment.
The importance of this cannot be underestimated. WPATH, founded in 1979, is widely considered to be the authority on the treatment and care of transgender and gender diverse people.
And yet here we have clear evidence of its own experts openly acknowledging how patients developed tumours or died from cancer linked to hormone treatment.
One 16-year-old girl suffered from liver tumours having been prescribed testosterone after taking puberty blockers for several years. Other patients on testosterone experienced vaginal and pelvic pain, debilitating bowel problems or bleeding and pain during sex.
…
And yet, quite soon, if (when) Keir Starmer becomes Prime Minister, any attempt on the part of a parent, teacher or doctor to question a child’s desire to transition could see them ending up in court, accused of abuse.
He has said he will outlaw all forms of conversion therapy, emphasising that such a ban would be ‘trans inclusive’.
That would mean parents facing a stark choice: acquiesce to their child undergoing treatment that even the experts know to be potentially harmful. Or face jail.
I know which one I would choose.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-13159687/SARAH-VINE-Keir-Starmer-jail-let-zealot-doctors-blinded-gender-ideology-loose-child.html

Unherd had this article on...well read the link

https://unherd.com/2024/03/the-cult-of-castration/

I'm struggling to understand how what WPATH are advocating is any different to this.

They'll be busy supporting IW on Twitter against JKR daring to say something they disagree with no doubt.

Does anyone know more about this court case? This is from the crowdfunder.

Hold NHSE to account for providing unsafe treatment for young people

Case listed for 26th March 2024 at the High Court

We have now heard that our case has been listed for hearing in the High Court in London on Tuesday 26th March 2024.

At this hearing, a judge will decide whether it is arguable that our case shows the NHS have acted unlawfully in not amending the adult service specifications. It is those specifications that do not require psychological evaluation and intervention prior to treatment. They are a fast tracked to irreversible lifelong harm with a ‘treatment’ that does not have the evidence to justify its safety or effectiveness.

The Service Specification we are challenging endorses WPATH Guidelines as good practice. Yet today ( 5th March 2024) files have been released that show deeply concerning practice within WPATH.

The Daily Mail (www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13156695/amp/Trans-healthcare-doctors-exposed-admitting-patients-young-mentally-ill-understand-consequences-treatment.html ) reports : Leaked messages from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) reveal how medics acknowledged behind the scenes that teenagers given puberty-blocking drugs did not always realise they could never have children…and… Some members of the US group, whose guidelines have influenced the NHS in England and the Scottish government, say they have gone ahead with surgery for people with severe mental health problems despite fears about whether they could give fully informed consent...
The Department of Health state NHS England ‘moved away from WPATH guidelines more than five years ago’. THIS IS PLAINLY FALSE. THE NHS IS DEFENDING THE GUIDELINES IN OUR CASE.
It's from age 17 - in the adult service - that most irreversible damage is done. It's the adult service that removes healthy organs, makes you bald and infertile, and does this on the recommendation of only two meetings.
This hormonal treatment and surgery is given to vulnerable young people. In one of the few studies in this area, of the women under 25 who were treated at the Exeter adult gender clinic, 89.4% had an adverse childhood experience, and 23.4% had a neurodevelopment disorder. 72.4% of the clinic’s users were found to have a previously diagnosed mental health condition. And yet – psychological intervention is not a required pre-requisite to access medical treatment.
Two-thirds of patients in adult clinics are 25 or under. 17 year olds are the largest single group referred to adult clinics. And the NHS's recent changes to the adolescent referral system will direct even more teenagers to these adult clinics.
The NHS have turned a blind eye to the welfare of these vulnerable teenagers. This stands in stark contrast to those who are due to be treated under the new Children and Adolescent Service Specification. Under 18s have had a years-long independent review, legal and political attention, but the adult service is still wholly unreformed, pulling in the opposite direction to Cass. Under 18s had two NICE reviews. But adults' medical interventions have never had even one. This is a major injustice to young people who are still growing up, and being subjected to interventions unsupported by good evidence, and with no tracking of long-term outcomes.
The NHS have instructed a Kings Counsel barrister to represent them and sadly are fighting this case. We need your help so that the current harmful adult service specification can be withdrawn and safe and effective clinical practice can be put in place for this vulnerable group of teenagers. Please would you continue to support this case financially and share it with others who are similarly concerned.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4928569-4928569-wpath-and-the-nhs-update

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4569010-nhs-scotland-links-to-eunuch-archive

The persistence is notable.

Our clutching pearls about book reading on trains.

https://x.com/ReduxxMag/status/1765109500032266330?s=20

I am just adding this to your post there Arabella.

At least one of the names mentioned in this clip about the Eunich Archive is mentioned in this WPATH leak. Dr. Thomas Johnson, a Professor Emeritus at the University of California and head of Children’s Folklore at the American Folklore Society.

He was mentioned on page 52 at least:

At the end of the Eunuch session, which was held in the grand salon of the conference venue, not off in a side room, Satterwhite and Dr. Thomas W. Johnson, the lead author of the SOC8 Eunuch chapter, and its co-author, Dr. Michael Irwig, had an interesting conversation. Satterwhite took to the microphone and told of how Johnson had helped him overcome his emotional discomfort in one of his earliest cases of a gay man who wanted to be castrated. He asked Johnson for advice on how to “get more surgeons on board” with performing this type of procedure, explaining that he’d had a mixed response from fellow attendees at the conference to his willingness to perform “non-standard” genital surgery.

After commending Satterwhite for “being open to new ideas,” Johnson said he hoped “having the [eunuch] chapter in the Standards of Care will open the possibilities,” that surgeons will see it and “say, yep, this is something that I ought to be willing to consider.” Irwig agreed, saying it was “huge” that eunuch was now in the SOC, because now doctors wouldn’t have to fear losing their license for castrating these psychologically troubled men.

“The more sessions like this we have, the more educated people will get, and then we’ll get more people like you to be able to do this,” said Irwig to Satterwhite

Another five or ten years of WPATH gradually pushing the envelope and I suppose the NHS might have been offering castration to men who wanted to be eunuchs. So all those chaps just convicted of GBH for chopping each others' bits off were just a bit impatient. They might have had it on the NHS!