WPATH files and Michael Shellenberger meeting BBC journalist

[redalex261]

As recommended by an earlier thread I contacted BBC via Have Your Say link to complain there had been zero news coverage regarding the release of the WPATH files by Michael Shellenberger and the subsequent report done by his colleague Mia Hughes.

I listened to a podcast hosted by Winston Marshall where he interviewed Michael Shellenberger regarding the files - podcast released around 8th March. During interview Shellenberger noted the podcast was being recorded on 8th February, and remarked he was not looking for a reporting scoop so he had contacted various media outlets to give them access to files to allow verification etc prior to him releasing the files and report to wider public on 8th March via his own website.

At the date of the podcast recording he actually had a meeting set up with a BBC journalist! Wonder what happened to that then? Did the journalist body swerve the meeting; go to meeting and gaily disregard files as “offensive transphobia” or go to meeting, prepare searing report for BBC News and have it buried by activist senior staff? Would love to know!

Interesting!

Hannah Barnes has left so they may be scrabbling around trying to find the right person.

They're also v hot on disinformation (!!) so may be wishing to make sure that what they use is carefully curated.

Sometimes i think it's good when they're thorough; it could be for a decent programme.

At the same time they may just be sticking their head in the sand.

Cass is coming though so they won't be able to for much longer ...

Or they're hurriedly making sure all and any links to anything or one dodgy has been removed from the bbc before they run it

I was quite shocked when I heard Shellenberger mention the list of UK news orgs he had meetings with. I’m amazed that UK journalists sat through a meeting with Shellenberger, with him giving them detailed info on a medical mistreatment scandal and they didn’t find it newsworthy.

Andrew Doyle on GB News and a number of articles in The Telegraph are the only in depth reporting on the issue from UK news media. On a less in depth basis, I know it’s been discussed on TalkTV and there was a Guardian, Times, and Daily Mail article or two as well but that’s all I can really find. It’s like the info just mostly sank without a trace in the UK media if you weren’t looking for it already.

Edited to add: I forgot The Economist ran a brief article on it.

I've started listening to heretics with Doyle; it just emphasises how utterly bizarre it is that no other news outlets are covering it. But also illustrates the depth of the rot.

The Cass Review is coming....

They’re waiting for another big news story or cause that they can bury it under. My moneys on Gaza or Islamophobia and they’ll just quietly stop talking about the extremes of the TRA.

Or they’re all going to do senior person job musical chairs so they can go into new organisations blaming the old team and save face without anyone taking responsibility for anything.

I don't recall anything in the Times except a reference in Janice Turner's column about something else. Did I miss it?

Yes I think a lot more will spill out after that

I'm not expecting much from the final report of the Cass Review that builds on the interim. The York analysis won't be a completed deliverable.

I very much hope that I'm being unduly pessimistic.

However, what would people like to see as an outcome of Cass that moves beyond the interim report? Most of the posters on FWR would agree that the current evidence base is very poor. What would anyone like/expect to see?

Off the top of my head: That a child identifying as the opposite sex or non binary is in itself a cause for concern under safeguarding protocols and all structures should be then geared to safeguard that child as much as possible.

Which in practice would be that all appropriate cahms and clinical care is explored and offered and social transition is seen as part of the medicalisation process. As such social transition (especially pronouns) would only be under clinical care and only after age 16. Therapy would be exploratory. Schools would have very strict rules and guidance as they're not medical and cannot diagnose.

To be honest I'd rather the age was much higher but I don't think that's possible under current laws.

Omg look!

x.com/shellenberger/status/1770042611807486187?s=46&t=A2fpFNgDRyXF2d6ye97wEA

Woah, what is going on.

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

It is a start...what needs to happen is for WPATH to delete its whole self.

I don’t suppose there’s any chance the BBC will cover this either.

Interesting development.

It needs confirmation as they would walk this back as IT errors as it stands at present. Remarkable that such an error would also coincide with the current complete absence of Icelandic members but I've heard more ludicrous explanations when organisations are in crisis mode.

Intriguing if MB's appearances to discuss and risible eye-opening claims about WPATH's evidence as a science -based approach has led to MB's temporary step-down or removal. (The FAQ stated that SOC8 used an “enhanced evidence based approach”.)

It needs confirmation as they would walk this back as IT errors as it stands at present.

Yep a concern

WPATH home page attributing it to an internal IT issues and SoC 8 back up.

Wayback in case useful at another time despite the formatting.

<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20240319174107/www.wpath.org" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://web.archive.org/web/20240319174107/www.wpath.org/

So they took it down and rolled it back, had an emergency board meeting and then decided to put the SOC with the Eunach Gender BACK UP?

It seems like the activist members are very much in the ascendancy in that organisation, even Marci Bowers (who has made some statements in the past that aren’t entirely positive about pubertal suppression) defers to them. And the activists are very maximalist in what they want society, and the healthcare sector to accept as being considered necessary medical care, so they wouldn’t see any reason why SoC should be removed, I presume.