That is how I read it.
Yes. Because when you build the house of cards, and we saw this at Yogyakarta and through the Denton’s recommendations, you can then fill the demand you have created. So, you work away in the policy area, then when that gets traction, you have your activist clinicians ready to fill all the positions created to provide the weak evidence and call it convincing, more and more of your activists use that weak evidence to prop up more weak policy and guidance and voila.
You have WPATH providing so called evidence to the World Health Organization’s who have nothing else to go on but this new overwhelming demand of children and young people demanding treatment.
Probably a crap analogy but it seems to work like a Ponzi scheme. WPATH gets its credibility from advising the ‘world’s health organisations’ about a demand that is being fed like wild fire by activist led activities. By social contagion (which is deemed transphobic to say) and other issues such as dodgy clinicians who might make suggestions based on false treatment recommendations.
Meanwhile, genuine patients are receiving a low standard of care but are being told by those believing they are righteous that this is the gold standard.
And meanwhile Bowers’ can only bluster and gee up the members with a ‘remember WE are the world’s advisors here!!’. Talk about fiddling while the place burns.