#WPATH files

[vaspider]

You'll probably see these "WPATH Files" trotted out a lot in the coming months. It's important to know what's actually in them and be armed with facts. Fortunately, Erin Reed has gone over them.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Gerald Posner

Published: Mar 4, 2024

Newly leaked files from the world’s leading transgender health-care organization reveal it is pushing hormonal and surgical transitions for minors, including stomach-wrenching experimental procedures designed to create sexless bodies that resemble department-store mannequins.

The World Professional Association for Transgender Health documents demonstrate it’s controlled by gender ideologues who push aside concerns about whether children and adolescents can consent to medical treatments that WPATH members privately acknowledge often have devastating and permanent side effects.

Yet the US government, American doctors and prominent organizations nonetheless rely on WPATH guidelines for advice on treating our youth.

The files — jaw-dropping conversations from a WPATH internal messaging board and a video of an Identity Evolution Workshop panel — were provided to journalist Michael Shellenberger, who shared the documents with me.

Shellenberger’s nonprofit Environmental Progress will release a scathing summary report, comparing the WPATH promotion of “the pseudoscientific surgical destruction of healthy genitals in vulnerable people” to the mid-20th-century use of lobotomies, “the pseudoscientific surgical destruction of healthy brains.”

‘Arbitrary’ age limits

The comparison to one of history’s greatest medical scandals is not hyperbole.

It is particularly true, as the files show repeatedly, when it involves WPATH’s radical approach to minors.

When the organization adopted in 2022 its current Standards of Care — relied on by the National Institutes of Health, the World Health Organization and every major American medical and psychiatric association — it scrapped a draft chapter about ethics and removed minimum-age requirements for children starting puberty blockers or undergoing sexual-modification surgeries.

It had previously recommended 16 to start hormones and 17 for surgery.

Not surprisingly, age comes up frequently in the WPATH files, from concerns about whether a developmentally delayed 13-year-old can start on puberty blockers to whether the growth of a 10-year-old girl will be stunted by hormones.

During one conversation, a member asked for advice about a 14-year-old patient, a boy who identified as a girl and had begun transitioning at 4.

The child insisted on a vaginoplasty, a surgery that removes the penis, testicles and scrotum and repositions tissue to create a nonfunctioning pseudo-vagina. It requires a lifetime of dilation. Was he too young at 14?

Marci Bowers, WPATH’s president and a California-based pelvic and gynecologic surgeon who is herself transgender, said she considered any age limit “arbitrary.”

But she would not do it. Why?

“The tissue is too immature, dilation routine too critical.”

In lay terms, that means boys who are too young do not have enough penal tissue for the surgery and the surgeon must harvest intestinal lining to build the faux vagina. Even Bowers admits that can lead to “problematic surgical outcomes.”

She would know since she has performed more than 2,000 vaginoplasties. Her highest-profile patient is 17-year-old Jazz Jennings, the transgender star of reality TV show “I Am Jazz.”

Three corrective surgeries were required to fix problems from the original vaginoplasty.

“She had a very difficult surgical course,” Bowers admitted in a 2022 appearance on the show. “We knew it would be tough — it turned out tougher than any of us imagined.”

Still, Bowers told her colleagues in the internal discussion forum of the best age for an adolescent to undergo surgery: “sometime before the end of high school does make some sense in that they are under the watch of parents in the home they grew up in.”

Christine McGinn, a Pennsylvania plastic surgeon and herself transgender, agreed. McGinn has performed “about 20 vaginoplasties in patients under 18” and thinks the “ideal time in the U.S. is surgery the summer before the last year of high school. I have heard many other surgeons echo this.”

Waiting until teens are older than 18 and in college is problematic, she said: “there are too many stressors in college that limit patients’ ability to dilate.”

Dangers downplayed

WPATH assures patients that surgical and hormonal interventions are tested and safe. It is a different matter in private.

President Bowers, for instance, said publicly in 2022 that puberty blockers are “completely reversible,” although in the internal forum she conceded it is “in its infancy.”

What about children who are infertile for life since they started hormone blockers before they reached puberty?

Bowers told her colleagues the “fertility question has no research.”

At other stages, members talk frankly about the complications for the transition surgery for girls, a phalloplasty in which a nonfunctioning pseudo-penis is fashioned from either forearm or thigh tissue.

It requires a full hysterectomy and surgical removal of the vagina. They also discuss other serious consequences, including pelvic inflammatory disease, vaginal atrophy, abnormal pap tests and incontinence.

A 16-year-old girl who had been on puberty blockers for several years before she was put on testosterone for a year had developed two liver tumors that an oncologist concluded the hormones had caused. Another member described “a young patient on testosterone for 3 years” who had developed “vaginal/pelvic pain/spotting . . . [and] atrophy with the persistent yellow discharge.”

Several colleagues described patients with similar conditions, some with debilitating bowel problems or bleeding and excruciating pain during sex (“feeling like broken glass”).

Vaginal estrogen creams and moisturizers as well as hyaluronic acid suppositories “can be helpful.”

One WPATH member seemed surprised: “The transgender people under my surveillance do not complain about this matter. However, I confess that I have never asked them about it.”

Rise of ‘de-gender’ surgery

The litany of transition surgery’s side effects did not stop WPATH from endorsing far more radical “nullification” surgeries for patients who do not feel either male or female and identify only as nonbinary.

Several dozen so-called “de-gendering” surgeries are designed to create a sexless, smooth cosmetic appearance that is unknown in nature. There is even an experimental “bi-genital” surgery that attempts to construct a second set of genitals.

In 2017, when tabloids reported a 22-year-old man had spent $50,000 to surgically remove his sex organs so he could “transform into a genderless extra-terrestrial,” it seemed a one-off oddity.

But WPATH has enshrined that concept in its Standard of Care — the same document in which the group endorsed for the time first time chemical or surgical castration for patients who identify as eunuchs. (WPATH even linked to the Eunuch Archives, where men anonymously share castration fetishes.)

These science-fiction-like surgeries are not only reserved for adults.

“How do we come up with appropriate standards for non-binary patients?” asked Thomas Satterwhite, a San Francisco-based plastic surgeon who has operated on dozens of patients younger than 18 since 2014. “I’ve found more and more patients recently requesting ‘non-standard’ procedures.”

What are nonstandard procedures? They include “non-binary top surgery,” a mastectomy without nipples. There are brutal procedures for girls that eliminate all or part of the vagina and for boys that amputate the penis, scrotum and testicles.

The goal, as one San Francisco surgical clinic proclaims on its website, “is a smooth, neutral body that is cosmetically free of sexual identification.” On TikTok the trend is called a “flat front.”

‘Too young to understand‘

A particularly intense subject of discussion was whether minors could understand the lifelong consequences of their gender treatments. Minors are presumed by law to be incapable of making an informed decision about having a vasectomy or tubal ligation.

Gender surgeries are an exception, however.

WPATH’s Standard of Care allows all procedures so long as the minor “demonstrates the emotional and cognitive maturity required to provide informed consent/assent for the treatment.”

In a May 2022 internal workshop, “Identity Evolution,” WPATH members conceded that was all but impossible.

Daniel Metzger, the British Columbia endocrinologist who cowrote the Canadian Pediatric Society’s position paper on health care for trans minors, said, “I think the thing you have to remember about kids is that we’re often explaining these sorts of things to people who haven’t even had biology in high school yet.”

Metzger noted adolescents are incapable of appreciating the lifelong consequence of infertility. “It’s always a good theory that you talk about fertility preservation with a 14-year-old,” he said, “but I know I’m talking to a blank wall. They’d be like, ‘ew, kids, babies, gross.’ Or, the usual answer is, ‘I’m just going to adopt.’ And then you ask them, ‘Well, what does that involve? Like, how much does it cost?’ ‘Oh, I thought you just like went to the orphanage, and they gave you a baby.’ . . . I think now that I follow a lot of kids into their mid-twenties, I’m always like, ‘Oh, the dog isn’t doing it for you, right?’”

There is extensive research showing adolescent brains are wired to have little control over rash behavior and are not capable of grasping the magnitude of decisions with lifelong consequences. It is why society doesn’t allow teens to get tattoos or buy guns. Car-rental agencies set 25 as the minimum age for renting a car, and Sweden sets the same limit for deciding on sterilization.

Detransitioners ignored, shunned

Although many WPATH members privately doubt that adolescents can give truly informed consent to life-altering procedures, they must affirm whatever children say about their gender.

Unless, the WPATH files disclose, the patient wants to reverse course and become a so-called detransitioner.

WPATH members mostly dismiss those cases as insignificant or overblown by the media and question whether minors who want to revert to their birth sex really understand what they are doing.

It’s a question that would never be asked for minors who declared themselves to be gender dysphoric.

One case involved a 17-year-old boy, just graduated from high school, who had been on testosterone for two years. He was reported to be “very distraught and angry. He reports he feels he was brainwashed and is upset by the permanent changes to his body.”

A self-described “queer therapist” did not believe any young person could be brainwashed. “In my experience, those stories come from people who have an active agenda against the rights of trans people.”

WPATH President Bowers said that “I do see talk of the phenomenon [detransitioners] as distracting from the many challenges we face.”

‘Frankenstein files’

The leaked files put a spotlight on the danger of mixing ideological activism with medicine and science. They should serve as an urgent wakeup call for the medical associations and government agencies that rely on WPATH guidance for transgender health.

The files might even prompt investigations into how those with distorted personal agendas seized control of the organization at the expense of science and patients.

Investigating what has gone wrong at WPATH might prove uncomfortable for some gender progressives in the Biden administration, none more so than Adm. Rachel Levine, the assistant secretary for health. Levine, the first transgender four-star military officer, is a WPATH member and has lavished praise on the organization.

She says it “assesses the full state of the science and provides substantive, rigorously analyzed, peer-reviewed recommendations to the medical community on how best to care for patients who are transgender or gender non-binary. It is free of any agenda other than to ensure that medical decisions are informed by science.”

Either Levine is unaware of the hormonal and surgical experimentation the group promotes or refuses to acknowledge it.

“The Frankenstein files.”

That is how a pediatrician described the leaked documents after I shared them with her.

Unfortunately, this is no horror novel.

It is a medical travesty playing out in real time, and the casualties are our children.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Erin In The Morning:

On Friday, numerous conservative accounts and news sources promoted headlines that the "American College of Pediatricians" had issued a statement against transgender care. A video accompanied the announcement featuring Dr. Jill Simons, who, wearing a white lab coat, states that there must be an end to "social affirmation, puberty blockers, and cross-sex hormones" for transgender youth. Despite the official-looking attire and name, the organization's name serves to mislead observers into thinking they are the much larger American Academy of Pediatrics, which represents tens of thousands of pediatricians. In reality, the ACP is a hyper-conservative Christian group of doctors created in 2002 to oppose gay parenting. In the announcement released on Friday, Simons called for an end to social transition and gender-affirming care for transgender youth. One video, which went viral, begins with a statement that the organization has released a "declaration" authored by the American College of Pediatricians, along with "hundreds of doctors and healthcare workers," opposing transgender care. It references the highly-politicized Cass Review from the United Kingdom, whose author controversially blames pornography for being transgender, as well as the Climategate-style leak of the “WPATH Files” to support the statement.

The video, which was viewed over 51 million times on Twitter, cuts off just before the next speaker is introduced: Dr. Andre Van Mol, who represents the Christian Medical and Dental Associations. Van Mol serves on the board of the Bethel Church of Redding, which made headlines in 2019 for attempting to pray a dead child back to life. He is followed by representatives from several other Christian medical organizations that also support banning transgender care. The website promoted at the event lists signatories to the statement, including the Catholic Medical Association, Genspect, The National Catholic Bioethics Center, the Family Research Council, and the Discovery Institute, an organization that promotes intelligent design over evolution in schools.

The American College of Pediatricians has been hugely influential in the promotion of anti-trans policy in the United States, relying in part to its misleading name. Members of the organization testify in state houses and courtrooms across the United States, misleading legislators into thinking they are the much larger American Academy of Pediatrics, the professional society that represents 67,000 pediatricians in the United States. In 2023, the organization inadvertently left a Google Drive public, leading to the leak of a massive trove of files showing their extremist roots. According to these documents, the group received significant donations from the Alliance Defending Freedom, a right-wing organization that has played a large role in the passage and defense of anti-LGBTQ+ laws in the United States. It also received free video production from Family Watch International, a group of Christian fundamentalists opposing homosexuality, birth control, abortion, and sex education. The American College of Pediatricians itself has been listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center since 2012, when the group’s leader stated that “homosexuality poses a danger to children” and that the group was “essentially a Judeo-Christian values organization.”

[...] Despite the widespread misinformation, every major medical organization in the United States supports gender-affirming care. In February, the American Psychological Association, the largest psychological association in the world, released a policy resolution stating that gender-affirming care is medically necessary and saves lives. The American Academy of Pediatrics currently recommends that transgender youth have access to gender-affirming care tailored to their unique needs. The Advocates for Trans Equality maintains a list of over 30 of the largest U.S.-based medical organizations that support transgender care, including the Endocrine Society, the Pediatric Endocrine Society, the American Public Health Association, and the American Medical Association.

Anti-trans extremists such as X owner Elon Musk and numerous right-wing and anti-trans pundits and websites are touting a video from American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds) Dr. Jill Simons issuing a statement opposing gender-affirming care for trans children.

In contrast to radical right-wing whacko group ACPeds, mainstream medical organizations support gender-affirming care as a medically necessary.

ACPeds is a radical right-wing medical group that is opposed to abortion, LGBTQ+ rights, and transgender rights, and has trafficked in COVID denialism and anti-vaxxer extremism.

[aridara]

So you know about the "WPATH Files", that collection of screenshotted posts taken from the WPATH forum, which supposedly expose how WPATH doctors are evil and out to get your children? You'd be surprised about how the claims anti-trans activists make about those posts are not supported by the posts themselves. Don't believe me? Then let's look at the NY Post article about the document. Specifically, let's look at what the article claims versus the actual reality of what is shown in those posts.

TL;dr:

WPATH doesn't authorize medical transition procedures for immature patient. They actually verify that the patient is mature enough, before allowing the procedure. They also need parental consent.

WPATH doesn't ignore the risks of gender-affirming care. They explain them to both patient and parents, in detail. And if issues do show up, they try to fix them instead of sweeping them under the rug.

WPATH isn't trying to "desex (sterilize) children". That's just the same, old, tired "they're coming for your children!" narrative used against Jewish people, gay people etc etc.

WPATH doesn't disbelieve detransitioners, they support them.

CLAIM: Not surprisingly, age comes up frequently in the WPATH files, from concerns about whether a developmentally delayed 13-year-old can start on puberty blockers to whether the growth of a 10-year-old girl will be stunted by hormones. (The article implies that WPATH doctors are pushing medical procedures on patients who are too young to understand them)

REALITY: The first case (section 21-A "ETHICAL GUIDELINES TO ADOLESCENT CARE - WPATH members discuss the Standards of Care (SOC) ethics for treating adevelopmentally delayed, 13-year-old") is about a 13yo who is already on puberty blockers. Specifically, patients who want hormone therapy need to reach enough emotional/cognitive maturity to provide informed consent to the treatment; but the specific patient in question will reach that maturity either way later than normal, or never at all. The poster asks what to do. Other users suggest a psychiatric evaluation to check whether the patient is capable of consenting or not, weighing the risks of continuing the blockers with the risks of stopping them, etc.

There is no evidence that the doctors gave hormones to that 13yo. Keep in mind that the NYP was complaining about the possibility of that 13yo getting hormones. The NYP had no complaint about the usage of puberty blockers, since the patient was effectively mature enough to get those, and the parents and doctors gave authorization.

Also, one of the posters point out that this kind of discussion also happens with cis (aka non-trans) kids with mental development issues who need access to surgeries. The normal approach is for the doctor, the parents and the patient to discuss together to reach a consensus: in order to approve the medical procedure, the doctor must believe that the procedure will be medically beneficial, the parents must provide full informed consent, and the patient must provide as much consent as possible. There are limit cases where one side can be overridden, like when a patient will never reach a sufficient level of mental maturity, and the doctor and parents are forced to evaluate the risk/benefits of each option. My point is that the NYP has no problems when this approach is applied to cis kids; it complains only when trans kids might get access to medical procedures.

The second case (section 5-A "PUBERTY SUPPRESSION TACTICS - A WPATH member questions the effects of puberty blockers on total height achievement for a 10-year-old patient") is about a patient who asked questions about puberty blockers. The 10yo patient in question was NOT on puberty blockers, nor he was given any - unlike what the NYP tries to imply.

CLAIM: During one conversation, a member asked for advice about a 14-year-old patient, a boy who identified as a girl and had begun transitioning at 4. The child insisted on a vaginoplasty...

REALITY: This is false. The original poster (section 1-A "GENDER AFFIRMING SURGERY FOR MINORS - WPATH members discuss transition surgery for a 14-year-old") only talks about "Gender Affirming Surgery MtF". Christine N. McGinn talks about vaginoplasties she performed on minors, noting that they didn't have any more issues than adult patients: most of them went fantastic, a few of them got issue (mostly because they didn't follow the dilation schedule), and none of them regretted the surgery.

It should also be mentioned that multiple users agreed that 14 was too young. Which shoots a hole in the NYP's "WPATH tried to push vaginoplasty on a 14yo kid" narrative. Whoops.

CLAIM: President Bowers, for instance, said publicly in 2022 that puberty blockers are “completely reversible,” although in the internal forum she conceded it is “in its infancy.”

REALITY: The two quotes don't contradict each other. In the first quote, Bowers claims that blockers AS THEY ARE USED IN GENDER-AFFIRMING CARE (aka for maximum 1 year) are reversible - meaning that if you stop taking them, the effects should reverse themselves. But the second quote (in section 5-B "PUBERTY SUPPRESSION TACTICS - WPATH members discuss how puberty blockers preclude fertility options for trans patients") talks about what happens when puberty is blocked indefinitely. Two very different things.

CLAIM: What about children who are infertile for life since they started hormone blockers before they reached puberty? Bowers told her colleagues the “fertility question has no research.”

REALITY: The Bowers quote doesn't exist in any of the screenshotted posts. The NYP made that up.

CLAIM: At other stages, members talk frankly about the complications for the transition surgery for girls, a phalloplasty in which a nonfunctioning pseudo-penis is fashioned from either forearm or thigh tissue. It requires a full hysterectomy and surgical removal of the vagina. They also discuss other serious consequences, including pelvic inflammatory disease, vaginal atrophy, abnormal pap tests and incontinence.

REALITY: I can't find the screenshotted posts in question. But let's assume for a second that the NYP is telling the truth here; it doesn't actually explain why "WPATH doctors discuss the complications for transition surgery" is bad. As usual, anti-trans activists only focus on the negative effects and risks of any form of medical transition, while completely ignoring any possible positive effect - like, say, alleviating the patient's gender dysphoria.

As far as I can tell, the NYP is trying to imply that these doctors hide these risks from their patients. Which... isn't true. Like, at all. In fact, the fact that they talk about the negative effects so much on a web forum that anyone can access just by paying a fee should clue the reader that these doctors are NOT trying to hide these effects/risks from their patients.

CLAIM: A 16-year-old girl who had been on puberty blockers for several years before she was put on testosterone for a year had developed two liver tumors that an oncologist concluded the hormones had caused.

REALITY: Looking at the posts (section 3-B "SURGICAL OR HEALTHCARE COMPLICATIONS - A WPATH member discusses the development of hepatic adenomas on a client taking testosterone/estrogen"), it turns out that the patient was using both testosterone and oral contraceptives. Hepatic adenomas, also called hepatocellular adenomas, are rare but benign epithelial tumors of the liver frequently associated with oral contraceptive pill use. Meanwhile, there is no evidence that transmasculine people who use hormones are at risk of liver cancer. (Sources: 1, 2.)

CLAIM: Another member described “a young patient on testosterone for 3 years” who had developed “vaginal/pelvic pain/spotting . . . [and] atrophy with the persistent yellow discharge.” Several colleagues described patients with similar conditions, some with debilitating bowel problems or bleeding and excruciating pain during sex (“feeling like broken glass”). Vaginal estrogen creams and moisturizers as well as hyaluronic acid suppositories “can be helpful.” One WPATH member seemed surprised: “The transgender people under my surveillance do not complain about this matter. However, I confess that I have never asked them about it.”

REALITY: This part of the NYP article repeatedly jumps between section 3-C "SURGICAL OR HEALTHCARE COMPLICATIONS - A WPATH member reports their young patient is experiencing vaginal pain on testosterone"; and section 3-D "SURGICAL OR HEALTHCARE COMPLICATIONS - WPATH members discuss erection pain in a patient on estrogen". So there's some confusion here. The general gist of both discussions is: the original poster brings up an issue that their patient has, other users discuss similar cases, provide additional information, and offer possible solutions.

Again: this is a case where a patient got some negative side effects from the treatment, and doctors are trying to solve them. Cases like these happen all the time. There is no evidence that the patient wasn't properly informed before being allowed to get the treatment. The doctors are trying to fix the problem. So what, exactly, is the NYP complaining about? Because if ONE single case of negative effects is enough to condemn a medical treatment, then the NYP should condemn every single medical treatment ever. But no, instead they only focus the blame on treatments that are primarily used by trans people. I wonder why [#sarcasm].

CLAIM: “How do we come up with appropriate standards for non-binary patients?” asked Thomas Satterwhite, a San Francisco-based plastic surgeon who has operated on dozens of patients younger than 18 since 2014. “I’ve found more and more patients recently requesting ‘non-standard’ procedures.” What are nonstandard procedures? They include “non-binary top surgery,” a mastectomy without nipples. There are brutal procedures for girls that eliminate all or part of the vagina and for boys that amputate the penis, scrotum and testicles.

REALITY: Satterwhite did, in fact, ask information about standards for non-binary patients (section 12-A "NON-STANDARD MEDICAL PROCEDURES - WPATH members discuss appropriate standards of care for nonbinary patients, particularly when they request non-standard procedures"). However, you can notice a thing. The NYP made sure to explicitly talk about "de-gendering" surgeries in the most scary and shocking way possible; then they mentioned that Satterwhite operated on dozens of patients younger than 18; then mentioned his quote about non-standard surgeries; and then proceeded to once again describe said surgeries in scary terms, saying that they're performed on "girls" and "boys". So you would think that Satterwhite is performing these horrible surgeries on children, right?

Well, turns out that in the screenshotted posts, Satterwhite made absolutely no mention of underage patients. His question was about non-binary patients in general.

Also, fun fact that the NYP doesn't mention: in trans healthcare, practically all genital surgeries are performed on adult patients. The very few exceptions are performed on 17yo patients, but ONLY in cases where waiting until the patient becomes 18 would make the surgery significantly harder to perform, to the point of having an increased risk of killing the patient. And even then, you need a metric ton of medical requirements.

CLAIM: A particularly intense subject of discussion was whether minors could understand the lifelong consequences of their gender treatments. Minors are presumed by law to be incapable of making an informed decision about having a vasectomy or tubal ligation. Gender surgeries are an exception, however. WPATH’s Standard of Care allows all procedures so long as the minor “demonstrates the emotional and cognitive maturity required to provide informed consent/assent for the treatment.”

REALITY: The NYP is lying. For starters, it forgets to mention that, in various states, minors CAN get certain surgical procedures as long as they pass certain prerequisites, such as a minimum age (like 16). Why? Because it's acknowledged that children mature over time, and become more and more capable of understanding - and by extension consenting to - more complex things, like surgeries.

Another thing that the NYP omits is that minors can get invasive medical treatments even if they don't reach the minimum consent age, as long as the doctor can provide reasonable medical reason to do so; the parents provide fully informed consent to the procedure; and the underage patient provides a sufficient amount of consent, which varies depending on the procedure requested. The latter is what “demonstrates the emotional and cognitive maturity required to provide informed consent/assent for the treatment” refers to.

The main difference is that WPATH doesn't decide that patients above a certain age are automatically mature enough to consent to a specific procedure; instead, WPATH doctors actually verify whether or not the patient is mature enough to consent to that specific procedure.

CLAIM: In a May 2022 internal workshop, “Identity Evolution,” WPATH members conceded that was all but impossible. Daniel Metzger, the British Columbia endocrinologist who cowrote the Canadian Pediatric Society’s position paper on health care for trans minors, said, “I think the thing you have to remember about kids is that we’re often explaining these sorts of things to people who haven’t even had biology in high school yet.”

The quote is from the transcript of the "Identity Evolution Workshop", Clip 1. It also completely fails to prove the NYP's point. Remember: the NYP is trying to claim that children cannot, under any circumstance, consent to surgeries - implying that this means that they shouldn't have access to surgeries. This is false.

Also, the transcript shows Metzger saying that they should improve the way doctors explain medical procedures to patients and parents, because if they don't understand these procedures, they can't provide informed consent, and therefore they can't have access to said procedures. Metzger is NOT proposing to provide medical procedures to people who don't provide informed consent.

CLAIM: Although many WPATH members privately doubt that adolescents can give truly informed consent to life-altering procedures, they must affirm whatever children say about their gender.Unless, the WPATH files disclose, the patient wants to reverse course and become a so-called detransitioner.WPATH members mostly dismiss those cases as insignificant or overblown by the media and question whether minors who want to revert to their birth sex really understand what they are doing.It’s a question that would never be asked for minors who declared themselves to be gender dysphoric. One case involved a 17-year-old boy, just graduated from high school, who had been on testosterone for two years. He was reported to be “very distraught and angry. He reports he feels he was brainwashed and is upset by the permanent changes to his body.”A self-described “queer therapist” did not believe any young person could be brainwashed. “In my experience, those stories come from people who have an active agenda against the rights of trans people.”

REALITY: The NYP is dishonestly mixing together multiple different contexts.

When a patient goes to a WPATH doctor and claims to be trans, the doctor accepts it. When a patient claims to not be trans anymore, the doctor still accepts it.

When a patient declares themselves to be gender dysphoric, the doctor DOES, in fact, verify whether the assertion is true, through psychological examination, exploring whether the dysphoria is innate or caused by issues like mistakenly believing that being feminine means that you must be a girl and therefore have "female" biology and so on. After that is verified, however, the doctor accepts that the patient is right.

When discussing how the media and public claim that there is an epidemic of detransitioners, THAT is when WPATH doctors will say that the issue is overblown. Because the reality is that the amount of detransitioners - and specifically people who got through medical transition and then detransitioned afterwards - is incredibly small, unlike what anti-trans activists would make you believe.

All of that can be clearly seen in the discussion in section 4-A "DETRANSITION CONCERNS - A WPATH member reports a patient who reports feeling “brainwashed” into transition".

SO, TO RECAP:

The NYP complains that the WPATH uses ‘arbitrary’ age limits, implying imply that WPATH is trying to pressure forcibly trans young kids before they were ready. The reality, however, is that WPATH is doing what every other medical field does when a patient is a minor: they approve the treatment only if the doctor reasonably believes that it will be overall beneficial, the parents give informed consent, and the patient itself gives consent as much as possible. Checking whether or not a kid is mentally mature enough to at least understand somewhat the procedure falls under the third point; checking the kid's physical maturity falls under the first point, because it impacts whether or not the therapy will be overall beneficial.

(BTW, the NYP says that, when making the new Standards of Care, WPATH "scrapped a draft chapter about ethics and removed minimum-age requirements for children starting puberty blockers or undergoing sexual-modification surgeries." What the NYP doesn't say is that the guidelines ARE the ethics of the practice; and that WPATH replaced minimum-age requirements with evidence-based requirements. For example: instead of assuming that all 16yo patients are automatically mature enough to get hormones, the new guidelines require doctors to actually verify whether the patient is mature enough (both physically and mentally) or not. Why this change? Because there were several cases where 16yo-or-older patients were allowed to get hormones when they weren't ready.)

The NYP claims that WPATH doctors downplayed the dangers of gender-affirming care. They did not. The post themselves demonstrate that they amply and truthfully discuss these dangers - and inform their patients about them. And when negative issues do show up, WPATH doctors try to fix them.

The NYP implies that WPATH doctors are trying to de-sex children. They did not. The posts only talk about performing non-standard procedures on non-binary patients - but they make absolutely no mention of minors.

The NYP claims that WPATH doctors are dismissing and disbelieving detransitioners. They did not. WPATH doctors support detransitioning patients, direct them towards support groups, research solutions for the physical issues caused by the regretted procedures, and so on and so forth. WPATH doctors also denounce the whole "there's an epidemic of people who go through medical transition and then later detransition and regret it, because it's way too easy for children to get brainwashed into being trans and to get medical transition" narrative as false because it IS false.

[thequietabsolute]

Putting this here for future reference …

[itsawritblr]

Oh, look what dropped in the notes:

OMFG, look at her bio:

An "ovicaprid" is a person who identifies as a bovid, i.e. sheep.

and

J.K. Rowling has been proven right!

"The Cass Review is a damning indictment of what the NHS has been doing to children.

"Dr Hilary Cass has submitted her final report and recommendations to NHS England in her role as Chair of the Independent Review of gender identity services for children and young people.

"Hilary Cass’s report demolishes the entire basis for the current model of treating gender-distressed children. Its publication is a shameful day for NHS England, which for too long gave vulnerable children harmful treatments for which there was no evidence base. It’s now clear to all that this was quack medicine from the start. 

"Dr Cass delivers stinging criticisms of NHS gender clinics, both adult and child, and her description of the Gender Identity Development Service is absolutely damning. It is disgraceful that GIDS, alongside the adult clinics, did not cooperate with her attempt to survey its practice, or to carry out a high-quality, long-term follow-up study on the treatment of children as part of the review, which would have been a global first."

You can read the entire review here. (pdf)

"Glinner" is Graham Linehan, a writer, screenwriter, and comedian who's been fighting against transitioning minors for years, losing friends, his job, and his agent along the way. But he's kept on fighting.

,

;

.

.

The tide has turned in the UK and in Europe. When will American media finally begin reporting on the closing of "gender clinics" and the bans on puberty blockers for children? I figure nothing will happen here in the U.S. until the lawsuits start flooding in. It's already begun. And with proof like the Cass Review and the WPATH files, it's going to be very, very difficult for clinics, doctors, and therapists to continue lying about how transitioning does no permanent and irreversible physical and psychological harm.

[t-news-pastille]

Actu trans de mars 2024

On débute les infos françaises pour faire suite à une news du mois dernier. La Haute Autorité de Santé (la HAS) conteste la décision du Tribunal administratif de Montreuil qui lui demandait de divulguer les noms des membres de son groupe de travail sur les parcours de transition des personnes trans.

La HAS a saisi la Cour de cassation pour continuer sa pratique habituelle de protection de la confidentialité de ses experts et expertes, soulignant les risques de pressions et les implications pour leur vie privée.

Ce groupe, formé en avril 2023, comprend des professionnel·les de santé, des expert·es et des représentant·es d'associations, et vise à améliorer l'organisation des soins et la prise en charge médicale des personnes trans.

Un regroupement d'associations LGBTQ+, dont STOP homophobie et Acceptess-T, ainsi qu’11 personnes trans et non-binaires, ont saisi le Conseil d'État pour revendiquer le droit à définir librement leur identité de genre et demander l'annulation des circulaires de 2017 concernant les procédures de changement de prénom et de mention du sexe à l'état civil.

(Ces 2 circulaires ont été mises en place pour préciser certains points de la loi du 18 novembre 2016 qui est relative au changement d’état-civil.)

Ces actions contestent notamment l'obligation implicite de cispassing, perçue comme une atteinte au droit au respect de la vie privée, et une discrimination basée sur l'apparence physique, excluant notamment les personnes non-binaires.

Le recours vise à promouvoir l'autodétermination du genre et à mettre fin à l'intervention de l'État dans la reconnaissance des identités de genre.

J’en profite au passage, vu qu’on est sur la même thématique, pour vous informer que l’association TOUTES DES FEMMES a sorti une pétition visant à demander un changement de sexe à l’état-civil libre, déjudiciarisé et gratuit.

Un rapport de 369 pages sur « la transidentification [sic] des mineurs » a été remis au Sénat à la fin du mois par un groupe de travail de sénateurs LR, dans le but d’en dégager des propositions de loi avant l’été.

Je ne vais pas trop m’étendre en détail sur le rapport parce que j’ai déjà fais plusieurs stories Instagram et que je prévoie de dédier une vidéo sur le sujet.

Mais pour contextualiser rapidement, Jacqueline Eustache Brinio est à la tête de ce groupe LR. Elle a voté contre l’interdiction des thérapies de conversion contre les personnes trans et les transitions pour les mineur·es trans en 2022. (Mais elle est favorable aux mutilations sur les enfants intersexes…)

Le groupe de travail est proche de personnalités douteuses comme Céline Masson et Caroline Eliacheff qui sont toutes deux à la tête ou proches de mouvements sectaires comme L’observatoire de la petite sirène et Ypomonie. (Qui d’ailleurs, pour ce premier, a partagé sur son site le rapport avant que celui-ci ne soit rendu public par les LR. Ce qui rend assez clair le fait que les LR ont servis de pantins pour diffuser politiquement une idéologie transphobe.)

Il semble évident, au vu du nom du rapport et des gens interrogés, qu’il y a une volonté explicite à terme d’interdire les transitions des mineur·es ainsi que toute reconnaissance de l’identité de genre des mineur·es. Et d’emboîter le pas, ou de retranscrire « à la française », ce qui peut se faire depuis quelques années au Royaume-Uni et aux États-Unis. (En plus de propager de la désinformation. Le lendemain, on a d’ailleurs eu le droit à Ségolène Royal qui nous sortait que la transidentité des gens venait du glyphosate… Voilà, voilà.)

Qu’on s’entende bien, là ça commence par les mineur·es parce que ce sont les « cibles » les plus faciles à atteindre sous couvert de protection des enfants. Mais après ce sera pas avant 25 ans. Pour ensuite terminer sur une tentative d’interdiction complète des transitions. Quand bien même toutes les recommandations mondiales sérieuses recommandent ces transitions…

Ce n’est pas la première fois que ça arrive mais, Brigitte Macron, épouse d’Emmanuel Macron, a été de nouveau victime de rumeurs et théories complotistes affirmant qu’elle serait une femme trans. Selon certain·es internautes, un vaste complot serait à l'œuvre pour masquer ce changement d'état-civil et sa soit disant « véritable identité ». Littéralement on a pu entendre ce genre de chose concernant Macron : « [Macron] qui n’a autre chose à faire que de prétendre au déclenchement d'une troisième guerre mondiale pour cacher des rumeurs sur la transsexualité de sa femme »

Au lieu d’attaquer Macron sur son incompétence. J’veux dire, littéralement, on se trouve dans une kakistocratie depuis que le mec au pouvoir. Rien ne va. Tous nos acquis s’effondrent les uns après les autres. Les français·es ont la tête sous l’eau. Mais non, les gens préfèrent gaspiller leur énergie sur un truc dont on se fout éperdument.

C’est la première fois que le président s’est exprimé là-dessus. On aurait pu avoir une sorte de Gaga Moment, à dire qu’on s’en fiche complètement et que ce n’est pas une tare, ni une insulte d’être trans. Mais sans surprise, il a appelé à un renforcement de « l’ordre public numérique » sur les réseaux sociaux qu’il a qualifié de « lieu d’expression des plus fous ». Et a dénoncé de « fausses informations » et des « scénarios fabriqués » concernant son épouse. En ajoutant que « le pire, [était] que les gens finissent par y croire, et cela [...] énerve jusque dans [sa] vie privée ».

Une bonne nouvelle qui intéressera j’imagine pas mal de personnes transmasculines hormonées : l’arrivée sur le marché français d’un générique du Nébido est prévue ! (Pour rappel, le Nébido c’est un type de THS masculinisant qui se prends par injection toutes les 10 à 14 semaines environs.) TESTOSTERONE BESINS, c’est le nom du générique – il y a aussi le nom Androject qui se balade pour la France -, a reçu un avis favorable au remboursement de la HAS.

L’association ACCEPTESS-T a eu l’occasion de discuter avec le labo Besins qui le produit et confirme qu’un accord de prix labo / sécu a bien été passé. (Au passage – parce qu’on m’a demandé en message privé si ça allait être un médoc safe - Besins c’est aussi le labo qui produit l’Androgel et l’Andractim. Et ils sont spécialisés dans les médoc’ gynéco et andrologiques. Sachant qu’en plus, il y a des tests et réglementations avant qu’un produit arrive en France. Il y a pas vraiment de raison qu’on se retrouve avec un générique dangereux. Parenthèse refermée.)

Concernant le remboursement, on serait sur du 65%. Et en théorie comme pour les autres THS, c’est sensé n’être valable que pour du AMM. (C’est à dire que l’utilisation qu’aura le patient du traitement a été bien listée dans l’autorisation de mise sur le marché du médicament.) Pour les personnes trans, on est, sur le papier en tout cas, sur du Hors AMM pour tous les THS. Donc c’est sensé bloquer pour le remboursement. Après dans les faits, les médecins n’inscrivent pas (ou en tout cas très rarement) ce « Hors AMM » sur les ordonnances. Donc si ce n’est pas inscrit, le remboursement est sensé se faire.

Au moment où j’enregistre cet épisode, on ne sait pas encore exactement quand ce générique sera disponible. Selon Maud Royer qui a confirmé l’info sur Twitter, il ne serait question que de quelques semaines (en tout cas la formulation de son tweet va dans ce sens). Après, des professionnel·les de santé sont plutôt d’avis que ça n’arriverait pas avant minimum plusieurs mois à 1 an ou plus. Mon endocrinologue et ma pharmacienne n’avaient pas d’infos lorsque je leur ai posé des questions là-dessus. Donc il va falloir se montrer patient avant d’avoir des infos plus officielles.

Pour faire suite à une news du mois dernier concernant l’attaque au couteau d'une jeune fille trans lors d’une fête d’anniversaire à Londres, 3 ado supplémentaires ont été inculpé·es et un procès est prévu pour le 6 janvier 2025.

L’enquêtrice principale sur cette affaire a indiqué qu’« à ce stade, [la police traite] cela comme un crime de haine transphobe ».

Il y a quelques semaines, JK Rowling a posté un tweet transphobe visant India Willoughby, une journaliste trans britannique. Suite à cette controverse, Willoughby a rencontré la police pour discuter de cette situation, où elle était qualifiée d’« homme » se déguisant en femme.

Bien que la police ait compris la situation et reconnu le caractère haineux du tweet, les lois actuelles au Royaume-Uni ne permettent pas de le qualifier comme un crime de haine, nécessitant plusieurs critères spécifiques.

Cependant, le tweet de Rowling a été enregistré par la police britannique en tant qu'« incident de haine non criminel », permettant ainsi de documenter cette manifestation de haine, de signaler les tendances discriminatoires et d'inscrire officiellement la transphobie de Rowling dans le registre public. Une première il me semble, malgré ses antécédents de comportements transphobes.

Toujours concernant JK Rowling, décidément la nénette passe ses journées à être obsédée sur les personnes trans…., cette dernière nous a pondu un tweet négationniste concernant l'Holocauste, affirmant que les personnes trans n’étaient pas ciblées par les nazi·es.

Ce qui bien évidemment est faux hein.

Je ne vais pas m’étendre sur le sujet parce que ça mériterait une vidéo dédiée, mais l'Institut des sciences sexuelles de Magnus Hirschfeld (qui est considéré un peu comme un pionnier dans la recherche pour les transitions et l’accompagnement des personnes trans) a été attaqué et ravagé en mai 1933. Les livres qui composaient la bibliothèque de cet institut, estimés de 10 000 à 20 000 ouvrages tout de même (qui portaient notamment sur les soins de santé queer, l’homosexualité, l’intersexuation et la transidentité, y compris sur des recherches scientifiques liées aux procédures de transition) ont été utilisés dans le cadre des premières autodafés nazis. Il était question de censure de l’esprit contraire aux valeurs, aux traditions ou à l'identité allemande.

Il convient également de souligner que Dora Richter, la première femme trans au monde à bénéficier d’une opération de réassignation sexuelle, a probablement été assassinée lors de ce raid ou peu de temps après.

Donc voilà, à un moment donné tu ne peux pas refaire l’Histoire juste parce que t’es transphobe. Ce n’est pas possible !

La dernière personne qui s’y est tentée s’était d’ailleurs retrouvée au tribunal à Cologne et avait perdu.

J’en avais déjà parlé il y a quelques mois, c’est officiellement pérenne, le NHS d’Angleterre ne prescrira plus de bloqueurs de puberté aux mineur·es trans. Pour y avoir accès il faudra faire parti·e d’un essai clinique ou bien se diriger vers des médecins privés.

Le Conseil National suisse a rejeté la proposition d'interdire les thérapies de conversion au niveau national. (Thérapies de conversion qui, je le rappelle, sont des tortures visant à rendre les personnes LGBTQ+ cis et hétéro).

Cette décision ne remet pas en cause l'interdiction de telles pratiques émise par le canton de Neuchâtel au printemps 2023. Les interdictions sont bien maintenues à l'échelle locale.

Le parti au pouvoir en Géorgie a proposé un projet de loi visant à lutter contre une « propagande LGBTQ+ » et qui restreindrait sévèrement les droits des personnes queers. Ce texte comporte une longue liste de mesures homophobes et transphobes, comprenant notamment une interdiction de changement de la mention du sexe.

Environ 200 personnes ont attaqué un couple de personnes trans dans le centre de Thessalonique, en Grèce.

Les victimes, âgées de 21 ans, ont été harcelées verbalement puis agressées physiquement avec des bouteilles et d'autres objets. Elles ont trouvé refuge dans un restaurant voisin, où le harcèlement a continué.

Cette attaque choquante a déclenché une vague d'indignation, avec des milliers de personnes descendant dans les rues de la ville pour manifester leur soutien aux victimes.

La réponse de la police a été critiquée pour son intervention tardive malgré la proximité d'un commissariat.

Les autorités ont depuis arrêté 21 personnes, dont 11 mineur·es, en lien avec l'attaque. Le plus jeune ayant seulement 14 ans.

Après que la Cour suprême russe ait banni je cite le « mouvement international LGBTQ+ » en fin d’année 2023, la Russie a désormais placé ce mouvement sur sa liste de personnes ou associations déclarées comme étant « terroristes et extrémistes ».

Cette liste est tenue à jour par une agence appelée Rosfinmonitoring, qui a le pouvoir de geler les comptes bancaires de plus de 14 000 personnes et entités désignées comme extrémistes et terroristes. (Cette liste ratisse assez large puisque cela va d’Al-Qaïda, à la société Meta, en passant par les associé·es de l’ex-chef de l’opposition russe Alexei Navalny).

Le président du Salvador, Nayib Bukele, a interdit et fait retirer officiellement tous les matériels pédagogiques concernant « l'idéologie du genre » dans toutes les écoles publiques du pays.

Tout responsable scolaire qui violerait la directive du ministère fera face à des conséquences juridiques, selon le ministre de l’Éducation.

Une étude récente, impliquant 552 jeunes, publiée dans la revue médicale Jama Pediatrics a révélé que seulement 1% des moins de 18 ans référé·es à un service de genre pour jeunes en Australie entre 2014 et 2020 ont choisi de faire marche arrière après avoir commencé à recevoir un traitement de type hormones ou bloqueurs de puberté. Ce qui signifie que 99% d’entre elleux n’ont pas changé d’avis.

La communauté trans de Karachi au Pakistan a organisé une manifestation devant le Karachi Press Club en réponse à une récente attaque de foule contre des femmes trans courant mars.

Les militant·es trans ont exprimé leurs préoccupations concernant le manque de droits fondamentaux et de respect, soulignant la vulnérabilité de leur communauté et l'absence de soutien du gouvernement. Iels ont demandé une action concrète et ont averti qu'en l'absence de progrès, iels bloqueraient les routes principales de Karachi.

La star néerlandaise de fléchettes, Noa-Lyn van Leuven, a fait face à une controverse après avoir remporté des titres historiques contre des hommes et des femmes au cours de la même semaine.

Elle a d'abord remporté le tournoi mixte PDC Challenge Tour en Allemagne, devenant la première femme à remporter un événement de cette série. Elle a ensuite remporté un tournoi féminin au Royaume-Uni, battant 2 joueuses vétérans bien classées, dont la numéro un actuelle.

Des critiques s’en sont suivies contre sa participation et ses victoires, certaines personnes affirmant qu'elle avait un avantage biologique au jeu des fléchettes. (Parce qu’effectivement c’est bien connu que les femmes trans ont un avantage indéniable pour viser une cible… Tout le monde sait ça !)

Et 2 joueuses ont quitté la sélection néerlandaise, car elles refusent de jouer avec une coéquipière trans. La Fédération néerlandaise de fléchettes a indiqué regretter cette décision, mais maintient son soutien à Van Leuven qui « répond à toutes les exigences » lui permettant de jouer dans la catégorie féminine.

J’étais passé complètement à côté de cette histoire, mais Patrick Beja du podcast Le RDV Jeux, ainsi que ses invité·es, en particulier le journaliste Cassim Montilla, ont abordé le sujet en appuyant sur le caractère transphobe de l’affaire donc j’me suis dis que j’allai en parler brièvement.

On est un peu face au Gamergate 2.0.

Sweet Baby Inc, une petite entreprise canadienne de consulting en narration dans le jeu-vidéo, est accusée de « wokiser » (alors je ne sais pas si le terme existe mais passons...) les grosses productions jv comme God of War Ragnarok, Alan Wake 2 ou encore Spiderman (qui sont pourtant 3 jeux où vous jouez un personnage principal blanc cishet masuclin – ‘fin truc habituel hein).

D’après des internautes, plutôt orienté·es droite et extrême-droite MAGA – donc trumpist hein -, l’entreprise aurait obligé les dev à intégrer plus d’inclusivité dans leurs jeux. (Ce qui n’est pas le cas au passage, lorsqu’il y a consulting et relecture, ce sont les boites de dev qui en font la demande explicite pour améliorer la narration et création de leurs jeux.)

Ces personnes présentent aussi l’entreprise comme étant un « cancer idéologique qui ruine les jeux-vidéo » et qui serait anti-homme cis blanc, à forcer à mettre des personnages trans partout.

Tout ça a résulté à plusieurs choses :

Une vague de harcèlement à l’encontre de l’entreprise et ses employé·es ;

La création d’un groupe Steam (Pour les gens qui ne le sauraient pas, Steam est une plateforme de distribution numérique de jeux vidéo sur PC) – qui liste tous les jeux auxquels la boite aurait fait de la relecture pour appeler à les boycotter. - Dans la réalité, le travail effectué ne comprends pas toujours de la relecture inclusive selon les jeux. -

Et surtout d’un serveur Discord où de nombreux messages et images à caractère transphobe, raciste et/ou misogyne pullulent allègrement. C’est la foire à la saucisse ! Et c’est tel, que les membres sont même appelé·es à utiliser Telegram, qui est une application de messagerie offrant la possibilité de communiquer de manière privée avec des messages chiffrés de bout en bout pour contrôler la confidentialité des discussions, lorsqu’on est sur des discours qui dépassent un seuil de violence (on va dire ça comme ça) qui ferait sauter le serveur Discord.

On termine avec les États-Unis. Côté législation ce mois-ci nous avons :

- Une cour d’appel fédérale qui a autorisé l’entrée en vigueur immédiate de l’interdiction des soins d’affirmation de genre dans l’Indiana.

- Le Wyoming qui est devenu le dernier État américain en date à interdire les soins d'affirmation de genre pour les mineur·es trans, rejoignant 23 autres États du pays qui ont adopté des lois restreignant ou interdisant ces types de soins.

- La législature du Kansas qui vient d'adopter un projet de loi qui exigera 2 choses :

La suppression de tous comptes de réseaux sociaux appartenant aux personnes de 14 ans et moins.

Et une vérification de l'âge pour accéder à tout site qui « publie ou distribue du matériel préjudiciable aux mineur·es ».

A première vue, on peut se dire « Bon, pourquoi pas. Ça évitera que les gamin·es tombent sur des sites pour adultes ». Alors, oui. Mais pas que !

Dans les faits, la formulation de la loi fait que ça va aussi s’appliquer pour tout sites ayant un contenu LGBTQ+ ou bien orientés éducation à la vie affective et sexuelle.

Lorsqu’on parle de vérification d’âge, ce ne sera pas juste cliquer sur un bouton pop up disant « j’atteste que j’ai bien 18 ans » hein. On parle ici de fournir une carte d’identité ou bien une carte bancaire. Quelque chose qui, factuellement, prouve que vous êtes bien majeur·e. Il n’y a peu de marche de manœuvre pour tenter de contourner la chose.

Ce qui pose, bien évidemment problème lorsqu’on est en questionnement et en recherche de réponses ou de représentation à ces âges là. Et qu’on ne peut pas ou ne se sent pas à l’aise avec le fait de questionner ses proches sur ces sujets.

Sans parler du fait que ça s’appliquera pour toutes les personnes du Kansas qui utilisent ces plateformes. On sera sur du stockage de masse de documents perso.

- Alors je sais que ces derniers mois j’ai dis que je ne traiterai plus des propositions de loi négatives mais celle-ci est suffisamment fucked up pour la mentionner : Un nouveau projet de loi dans le Missouri inscrirait les profs sur le registre des infractions sexuelles s'iels « soutiennent et/ou contribuent à la transition sociale » d'un ou une jeune trans. (Que ce soit l’usage des bons pronoms, un soutien matériel, du partage d’infos ou de ressources concernant les transitions sociales).

Ce serait catégorisé comme un délit de classe E, passible de peine pouvant aller jusqu'à 4 ans de prison et d’amendes pouvant atteindre 10 000 dollars.

Selon le Los Angeles Blade, il est prévu que ce projet de loi n'aboutisse pas en commission, mais tout de même, cela reste inquiétant…

- Un projet de loi interdisant les drapeaux queer et les discussions concernant les personnes LGBTQ+ dans les écoles de l'Utah a été rejeté par la Chambre des représentants de cet État.

- Un projet de loi visant à forcer les prof à mégenrer les élèves trans et à leur interdire d'utiliser les bonnes toilettes à l'école a été rejeté en Arizona.

- Et pour terminer avec cette partie législation : Le conseil municipal de Sacramento, capitale de la Californie, a voté à l'unanimité pour déclarer la ville comme "sanctuaire pour les personnes trans", garantissant que ses ressources municipales ne seront pas utilisées pour criminaliser les personnes trans en quête de soins d’affirmation de genre, et ne coopéreront pas avec celleux qui cherchent à faire respecter des lois criminalisant ces soins dans d'autres États.

Dans le reste de l’actu USA :

- Des républicain·es de l'Alabama demandent le licenciement d'une employée trans du Space Camp de la NASA après qu'un homme ait signalé sur Facebook la présence de cette employée, sans qu'aucune allégation d'un comportement inapproprié ne soit faite. L’affaire à pris de l’ampleur après que le compte Libs of Tiktok – encore lui… - aie emboîté le pas pour en parler.

Des politiciens, dont le sénateur Tommy Tuberville, ont insinué que la simple présence d'une personne trans représentait un danger pour les enfants, amplifiant ainsi une panique morale selon laquelle les personnes trans sont intrinsèquement dangereuses pour la sécurité des enfants.

Une pétition en soutien à l'employée du Space Camp a été lancée par le groupe Alabama Transgender Rights Action Coalition.

- Petit point sur l’affaire "WPATH Files".

Qu’est-ce que c’est que ce truc ?

C’est un document publié par des groupes anti-trans et promu par des activistes de droite, qui prétend révéler des scandales médicaux majeurs au sein de la WPATH (la World Professional Association for Transgender Health).

Ces fameux fichiers ont été rapidement partagés par presque toutes les grandes organisations anti-trans ainsi que par les journalistes qui les soutiennent.

Sauf qu’un examen minutieux effectué par la journaliste Erin Reed a révélé que ce dernier était truffé d’erreurs. 216 pour être précis ! Ce qui est juste énorme ! Parmi elles on retrouve des erreurs de citation ou encore d’interprétations trompeuses. En effet, le rapport déforme souvent les citations et les données médicales, mélange identité de genre et sexualité, et présente de manière fallacieuse des échanges cliniques ordinaires comme des preuves de scandale. On peut y retrouver en plus une sélection biaisée et décontextualisée de messages de forums médicaux.

Et surtout, il y a un aspects assez marquant du document qui critique les faibles taux de regrets chez les personnes trans, suggérant que leur bonheur serait "suspect". Littéralement les transitions fonctionnent, c’est tellement inconcevable et chelou pour les transphobes que ça en devient suspect !

Bref, on est face à un rapport chargé de manipulations visant à discréditer la WPATH.

- Twitter interdit de nouveau le mégenrage et le deadnaming suite à la mise à jour plus que discrète de ses conditions d’utilisation. La conséquence ne sera que de "réduire la visibilité des publications" enfreignant à répétition cette politique. Cela ne s'appliquera que "là où les lois locales l'exigent" et ce sera à la victime de faire le signalement.

De plus, Elon Musk, le propriétaire de la plateforme, connu pour ses positions transphobes, a laissé entendre qu'il pourrait annuler à nouveau la politique et que cette dernière ne sera appliquée qu’au cas par cas. Chaya Raichik, qui gère le compte transphobe Libs of TikTok, a reçu la confirmation de Musk lui assurant qu'elle ne serait pas suspendue malgré ses nombreuses violations de la politique…

- On poursuit avec une info toujours en lien avec les réseaux sociaux. Un rapport GLAAD dénonce que Meta, propriétaire de Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp et Threads, malgré ses politiques d’utilisation interdisant la transphobie, tolère toujours de manière flagrante et récurrente les contenus haineux et discriminatoires envers les personnes trans sur ses plateformes.

On parle de contenus incluant des attaques haineuses, des allégations de "grooming", des mensonges sur les soins de santé trans, des discours de déshumanisation, des appels à la violence et même des incitations au suicide.

Malgré de nombreux appels à l'action et les preuves fournies par la communauté LGBTQ+, Meta ne semble pas faire respecter ses propres politiques, laissant ainsi un environnement toxique et dangereux pour les personnes LGBTQ+ sur ses plateformes.

- Selon un autre sondage GLAAD, plus de 50 % des électeurices inscrit·es s'opposent à un ou une candidate qui parle fréquemment de restreindre l'accès aux soins de santé et à la participation aux sports pour les jeunes trans.

Cette opposition pourrait être préjudiciable à certain·es républicain·es qui ont largement adopté des messages anti-trans en vue des élections de novembre, bien que cette stratégie ait eu déjà peu de succès lors des élections de mi-mandat de 2022.

- Suite de l’affaire Nex Benedict.

Le procureur du comté de Tulsa a déclaré qu’un « dépôt d’accusations criminelles n’est pas justifié » pour cette affaire. Ce qui signifie qu’il n’y aurait pas d'accusations, ni de répercussion pour les 3 élèves qui ont attaqué violemment Nex Benedict la veille de sa mort. Le procureur a qualifié l’altercation d’« exemple de combat mutuel »…

Seconde info toujours concernant Nex Benedict :

Le rapport d’une page du médecin légiste de l’Oklahoma indique que l’ado se serait suicidé. La cause probable du décès est répertoriée comme étant une surdose d’un combo de Benadryl et de Prozac. Selon le Center for Disease Control and Prevention, ce sont deux médicaments couramment utilisés lors des tentatives de suicide.

Bon.. Il y a quelques petites choses à détricoter là-dedans.

De 1) Même en tenant compte de la question du suicide de Nex Benedict (qui reste douteux – je reviendrai sur ça juste après), l'agression qui l'a conduit à l'hôpital reste un crime de haine. Et le fait qu'une personne se suicide après avoir été victime d'un tel crime est aussi grave que la mort d'un ado dans un homicide transphobe. Je le dis parce que la thèse du suicide a fait que certaines personnes transphobes minimisaient l’agression, en disant « Bah vous voyez encore un trans qui se fou en l’air ! Ça n’avait rien à voir au final. ». (Les gens sont décidément toujours autant empathiques, ça fait plaisir à voir…)

Et de 2) donc cette conclusion un peu étrange du suicide :

La famille de Nex Benedict a publié des informations qui ont été exclues du rapport du médecin légiste de l'Oklahoma. On peut y retrouver de multiples contusions, de multiples hémorragies, de multiples lacérations et de multiples écorchures qui ont été trouvées sur sa tête, qui démontrent de la gravité de l'agression avant sa mort.

Nex a été décrit dans l’appel au 911 comme étant « posturing ». Ça fait référence soit à « decerebrate posturing » (une posture décérébrée), soit à « decorticate posturing » (une posture décortiquée) qui, dans les deux cas, sont des indicateurs assez clairs d'une lésion cérébrale grave.

Et il ne faut pas oublier non plus, que le gamin a été reconduit chez lui sans qu’une période observatoire suffisante (à savoir 72h dans ce genre de blessure) n’aie été mise en place par l’hôpital. Ce qui pourrait expliquer la prise d’auto-médication pour se soulager.

Donc, ça reste bizarre.

Suite à cette affaire, le ministère de l'Éducation à ouvert une enquête fédérale. Ça a également permis d’attirer l’attention sur la récente nomination de Chaya Raichik, la fondatrice des Libs de TikTok, à un rôle consultatif au sein du ministère de l'Éducation de l'État d'Oklahoma (bien qu’elle ne vive pas dans cet état). Et des groupes de parents ont appelé, dans une lettre ouverte, l’influenceuse transphobe à « rester en dehors de [leur] État. ».

- Alex Franco, un jeune homme trans de 21 ans, a été tué par balle par 3 ado (âgés respectivement de 15, 17 et 17 ans) dans l'Utah. Alex avait été signalé disparu par sa petite amie. Suite à des recherches policières, son corps a été retrouvé dans une zone désertique de l'Utah. Les ado ont été arrêtés et inculpés pour son enlèvement et son meurtre.

Un mémorial pour lui rendre hommage a été organisé par les amis et la famille d'Alex.

- Une étude Media Matters a révélé que la couverture médiatique de la législation anti-trans en 2023 – en particulier, dans le cas des lois qui cherchaient à interdire ou à restreindre l'accès des personnes trans aux soins d'affirmation de genre ou aux établissements publics – variait considérablement en termes de ton et de temps passé sur les chaînes câblées.

Bien que toutes les chaînes, indépendamment de leur orientation politique, aient abordé le même sujet, la manière dont elles l'ont traité différait considérablement.

Sur MSNBC et CNN, respectivement 42 % et 36 % des segments ont utilisé des recherches pour contredire les narratifs anti-trans ou la désinformation, tandis que sur Fox News, 49 % des segments ont soutenu des restrictions sur les soins d'affirmation de genre ou l'accès aux toilettes pour les personnes trans.

Malgré ces différences dans la manière dont ces réseaux ont abordé ces lois en termes de ton et de temps alloué, très peu de segments ont donné la parole à des personnes trans. Sur MSNBC, seulement 22 % des segments ont inclus des invité·es ouvertement trans. Sur CNN, ce chiffre s'élevait à 16 %. Et la situation était encore plus catastrophique sur Fox News, où aucune présence trans n'a été observée, quand bien même le réseau compte parmi ses employé·es la personnalité trans Caitlyn Jenner. (Bon pour cette dernière, honnêtement ce n’est pas plus mal hein. Elle a encore déclaré ce mois-ci que les femmes trans ne sont pas de « vraies femmes » et a appelé au retour des tests chromosomiques dans le sport. Comment tirer contre son propre camp…)

En 2024, la persistance de la tendance à la législation anti-trans souligne une fois de plus l'importance capitale des médias dans la manière dont les expériences des personnes trans, les plus directement touchées par ces initiatives législatives, sont couvertes et comprises.

- Plus d'une douzaine d'athlètes universitaires ont intenté un recours collectif contre la National College Athletics Association (la NCAA), alléguant que l'organisation violait leurs droits en vertu de l'article IX en permettant aux athlètes trans de participer aux compétitions féminines.

Les 16 plaignantes, dont l'ancienne nageuse de l'Université du Kentucky Riley Gaines, accusent la NCAA de violer la loi fédérale anti-discrimination et de ne pas fournir un traitement égal aux femmes en permettant aux athlètes trans de concourir dans les ligues correspondant à leur identité de genre.

Iels cherchent des dommages punitifs pour le « stress émotionnel » occasionné, le retrait de Lia Thomas et d'autres athlètes trans des records officiels des femmes de la NCAA, ainsi qu'une interdiction des femmes trans dans les vestiaires féminins.

- Planet Fitness a exclu une de ses adhérentes pour avoir pris une photo d'une femme supposée trans dans ses vestiaires féminins qu’elle a ensuite partagé sur le net.

Malgré les objections persistantes de Patricia Silva, la femme exclue – accessoirement partisane de Donald Trump –, la salle de sport a maintenu sa décision de résilier son abonnement en raison de la violation de la politique interdisant de prendre des photos dans les vestiaires. Et en a profité pour réaffirmer son engagement de longue date envers un environnement inclusif et respectueux de l'identité de genre de ses membres.

Silva s’est plainte sur Facebook que, je cite « Planet Fitness [avait] annulé [son] adhésion et a permis au pédophile de rester. » Ses propos ont été relayées par la suite par le compte anti-trans Libs of TikTok qui a appelé au boycott de la salle de sport.

- Et pour terminer, un récent sondage en Caroline du Sud révèle que 71 % des électeurices inscrit·es, y compris une majorité de républicains et républicaines, estiment que le gouvernement ne devrait pas intervenir dans les décisions médicales concernant les soins de santé des jeunes trans, à partir du moment où les parents sont impliqué·es dans cette prise de décision.

La Caroline du Sud reste l’un des rares États contrôlés par les Républicains à ne pas avoir interdit les soins d’affirmation de genre pour les mineur·es et jeunes trans.

Du coup c’est intéressant d’avoir un résultat aussi marqué dans un contexte où une proposition de loi allant dans ce sens est actuellement à l'étude.

------

🔗 Les sources :

📺 Accéder à l'épisode avec ses sous-titres : 

🎧 Accéder à l'épisode au format audio :

[gwiazdaerydanu]

This Is One of the Biggest Medical Malpractice Scandals in History | Michael Shellenberger

Dr. Jordan B. Peterson sits down with bestselling author and journalist Michael Shellenberger to discuss the shocking revelations now being published in the WPATH Files. 

 Michael Shellenberger is a climate activist, journalist, and bestselling author. He has covered climate for over 30 years, as well as AI, emergent technologies, the Twitter Files, and most recently, the WPATH files

[antropofagist]

I hope jk rowling dies forever a painful death involving a car covered in hammer that explodes more than a few times and hammers go flying everywhere

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

My name is Dr Jill Simons. I'm a board-certified pediatrician and the executive director for the American College of Pediatricians. Today I'm here alongside my colleagues representing the Coalition of co-signers of the Doctors Protecting Children Declaration. Our coalition consists of physicians together with nurses, behavioral health clinicians, other health professionals, scientists, researchers and public health and policy professionals. And we have serious concerns about the physical and mental health effects of the current protocols promoted for the care of children and adolescents in the United States who express discomfort with their biological sex.

This declaration was authored by the American College of Pediatricians, but really it was developed from the expertise of hundreds of doctors researchers and other healthcare workers and leaders wh, for years have been sounding the alarm on the harmful protocols that continue to be promoted by the medical organizations in the United States. Despite recent revelations from the leaked WPATH Files and the recent release of the final report from the Cass Review, these medical organizations have not changed course.

So, we are calling on these medical organizations of the United States, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Endocrine Society, the Pediatric Endocrine Society, the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry to follow the science and their European colleagues and immediately stop the promotion of social affirmation, puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgeries for children and adolescents who experience distress over their biological sex.

In our declaration, we affirm that sex is a dimorphic, innate trait defined in relation to an organism's biological role in reproduction: male and female this genetic signature is present in every nucleated somatic cell in the body and is not altered by drugs or surgical interventions. Consideration of these innate differences is critical to the practice of good medicine and to the development of sound policy for children and adults alike. Medical decision-making should be based upon an individual's biological sex. It should respect biological reality and the dignity of the person by compassionately addressing the whole person.

We are here defying the claims made by these medical organizations in the US that those of us who are concerned are a minority and that their protocols are consensus. They are not consensus, and we are speaking in a loud unified voice: enough.

[ Full press conference: https://youtu.be/C2tU90XPFlg ]

--

Doctors Protecting Children Declaration

As physicians, together with nurses, psychotherapists and behavioral health clinicians, other health professionals, scientists, researchers, and public health and policy professionals, we have serious concerns about the physical and mental health effects of the current protocols promoted for the care of children and adolescents in the United States who express discomfort with their biological sex.

We affirm:

1. Sex is a dimorphic, innate trait defined in relation to an organism’s biological role in reproduction. In humans, primary sex determination occurs at fertilization and is directed by a complement of sex determining genes on the X and Y chromosomes.  This genetic signature is present in every nucleated somatic cell in the body and is not altered by drugs or surgical interventions

2. Consideration of these innate differences is critical to the practice of good medicine and to the development of sound public policy for children and adults alike.

3. Gender ideology, the view that sex (male and female) is inadequate and that humans need to be further categorized based on an individual’s thoughts and feelings described as “gender identity” or “gender expression”, does not accommodate the reality of these innate sex differences. This leads to the inaccurate view that children can be born in the wrong body. Gender ideology seeks to affirm thoughts, feelings and beliefs, with puberty blockers, hormones, and surgeries that harm healthy bodies, rather than affirm biological reality.

4. Medical decision making should not be based upon an individual’s thoughts and feelings, as in “gender identity” or “gender expression”, but rather should be based upon an individual’s biological sex. Medical decision making should respect biological reality and the dignity of the person by compassionately addressing the whole person.

We recognize:

1. Most children and adolescents whose thoughts and feelings do not align with their biological sex will resolve those mental incongruencies after experiencing the normal developmental process of puberty.

Desistance is the norm without affirmation as documented by Zucker in his article “The Myth of Peristence”. (1) Zucker, KJ. The myth of persistence: Response to “A critical commentary on follow-up studies and ‘desistance’ theories about transgender and gender nonconforming children” by Temple Newhook et al. International Journal of Transgenderism. 2018: 19(2), 231–245. Published online May 29, 2018.http://doi.org/10.1080/15532739.2018.1468293 [1]

In the “largest sample to date of boys clinic-referred for gender dysphoria,” there was a desistance rate of 87.8%. (2) Singh D, Bradley SJ and Zucker KJ. A Follow-Up Study of Boys With Gender Identity Disorder. Front Psychiatry. 2021;12:632784. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2021.632784

The pro-affirmation Endocrine Society Guidelines (2017) admit: “…the GD/gender incongruence of a minority of prepubertal children appears to persist in adolescence.” (3) Hembree, W., Cohen-Kettenis PT, Gooren L, et al. Endocrine treatment of gender-dysphoric/gender-incongruent persons: An Endocrine Society clinical practice guideline J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2017; 102:1–35.

A longitudinal study from the University of Groningen in the Netherlands followed 2772 adolescents (recruited from a psychiatric clinic) from age 11 years through 22 – 26 years. “In early adolescence 11% of participants reported gender non- contentedness. The prevalence decreased with age and was 4% at the last follow-up (around age 26).” Even in this psychiatric patient study group for which interventions were not addressed, but “gender affirmation” is most likely, gender non-contentedness (essentially gender noncongruence) decreased substantially from early adolescence to young adulthood.(4) Rawee P, Rosmalen JGM, Kalverdiijk L and Burke SM. Development of gender non-contentedness during adolescence and early adulthood. Archives of Sexual Behavior. 2024; https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-024-02817-5

2. Responsible informed consent is not possible in light of extremely limited long-term follow-up studies of interventions, and the immature, often impulsive, nature of the adolescent brain. The adolescent brain’s prefrontal cortex is immature and is limited in its ability to strategize, problem solve and make emotionally laden decisions that have life-long consequences.[2]

3. Sex-trait modification or “Gender affirming” clinics in the United States base their treatments upon the “Standards of Care” developed by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH). However, the foundation of WPATH guidelines is demonstrably flawed and pediatric patients can be harmed when subjected to those protocols.

The two Dutch studies that form the foundation for treatment guidelines as documented in the WPATH “Standards of Care” guidelines version 7 (SOC 7) had serious flaws.[3]

These studies did show that the appearance of secondary sex characteristics in adolescents and young adults could be changed by hormonal and surgical interventions, but they failed to demonstrate meaningful long-term improvement in psychological well-being.

Scientific concerns with these studies also include a lack of a control group, small sample sizes, significant numbers of patients lost to follow up, and the elimination of patients who experienced significant mental illness from entering the studies.

It is concerning that the Dutch studies did not address complications and adverse outcome in the adolescent cohort that underwent transition. These complications included new onset diabetes, obesity and one death.[4]

4. There is now sufficient research to further demonstrate the failure of the WPATH, American Academy of Pediatrics and Endocrine Society protocols.

The Cass Review was released on April 10, 2024, as an “independent review of gender identity services for children and young people”. The following points are from Cass’s final report:[5]

Commissioned by the National Health Service (NHS) England, and chaired by Dr. Hilary Cass, the 388-page report utilized systematic reviews, qualitative and quantitative research, as well as focus groups, roundtables and interviews with international clinicians and policy makers.

As part of the evaluation, they reviewed the research on social transition, puberty blockers, and cross-sex hormones.

Social transition

“The systematic review showed no clear evidence that social transition in childhood has any positive or negative mental health outcomes, and relatively weak evidence for any effect in adolescence.

However, those who had socially transitioned at an earlier age and/or prior to being seen in clinic were more likely to proceed to a medical pathway.”

Puberty blockers

“The systematic review undertaken by the University of York found multiple studies demonstrating that puberty blockers exert their intended effect in suppressing puberty, and also that bone density is compromised during puberty suppression. However, no changes in gender dysphoria or body satisfaction were demonstrated [emphasis added].”

“There was insufficient/inconsistent evidence about the effects of puberty suppression on psychological or psychosocial wellbeing, cognitive development, cardio-metabolic risk or fertility.”

“Moreover, given that the vast majority of young people started on puberty blockers proceed from puberty blockers to masculinizing/ feminizing hormones, there is no evidence that puberty blockers buy time to think, and some concern that they may change the trajectory of psychosexual and gender identity development.”

Cross-sex hormones

“The University of York carried out a systematic review of outcomes of masculinising/feminising hormones.” They concluded, “There is a lack of high-quality research assessing the outcomes of hormone interventions in adolescents with gender dysphoria/incongruence, and few studies that undertake long-term follow-up. No conclusions can be drawn about the effect on gender dysphoria, body satisfaction, psychosocial health, cognitive development, or fertility.”

“Uncertainty remains about the outcomes for height/growth, cardio-metabolic and bone health.”

The Cass Review further stated, “Assessing whether a hormone pathway is indicated is challenging. A formal diagnosis of gender dysphoria is frequently cited as a prerequisite for accessing hormone treatment. However, it is not reliably predictive of whether that young person will have longstanding gender incongruence in the future, or whether medical intervention will be the best option for them.”

A 2024 German systematic review on the evidence for use of puberty blockers (PB) and cross-sex hormones (CSH) in minors with gender dysphoria (GD) also found “The available evidence on the use of PB and CSH in minors with GD is very limited and based on only a few studies with small numbers, and these studies have problematic methodology and quality. There also is a lack of adequate and meaningful long-term studies. Current evidence doesn’t suggest that GD symptoms and mental health significantly improve when PB or CSH are used in minors with GD.”[6]  

5. There are serious long-term risks associated with the use of social transition, puberty blockers, masculinizing or feminizing hormones, and surgeries, not the least of which is potential sterility.

Youth who are socially affirmed are more likely to progress to using puberty blockers and cross-sex (masculinizing or feminizing) hormones.

“Social transition is associated with the persistence of gender dysphoria as a child progresses into adolescence.”[7]

“Gender social transition of prepubertal children will increase dramatically the rate of gender dysphoria persistence when compared to follow-up studies of children with gender dysphoria who did not receive this type of psychosocial intervention and, oddly enough, might be characterized as iatrogenic.”[8]

Puberty blockers permanently disrupt physical, cognitive, emotional and social development.

Side effects listed in the Lupron package insert include emotional lability, worsening psychological illness, low bone density, impaired memory, and the rare side-effect of pseudotumor cerebri (brain swelling).[9]

A coalition of physicians and medical organizations from around the world submitted a petition to the Commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration requesting urgent action be taken to eliminate the off-label use of GnRH (growth hormone) agonists in children.[10]

Testosterone use in females and estrogen use in males are associated with dangerous health risks across the lifespan including, but not limited to, cardiovascular disease, high blood pressure, heart attacks, blood clots, stroke, diabetes, and cancer.[xi],[12]

Genital surgeries affect future fertility and reproduction.

6. A report from Environmental Progress released on March 4, 2024, entitled “The WPATH Files” revealed “widespread medical malpractice on children and vulnerable adults at global transgender healthcare authority.”[13]

“The WPATH Files reveal that the organization does not meet the standards of evidence-based medicine, and members frequently discuss improvising treatments as they go along.”

“Members are fully aware that children and adolescents cannot comprehend the lifelong consequences of ‘gender-affirming care’ and, in some cases due to poor health literacy, neither can their parents.”

In addition, developmentally challenged and mentally ill individuals were being encouraged to “transition”, and treatments were often improvised.

7. Evidence-based medical research now demonstrates there is little to no benefit from any or all suggested “gender affirming” interventions for adolescents experiencing Gender Dysphoria. Social “affirmation”, puberty blockers, masculinizing or feminizing hormones, and surgeries, individually or in combination, do not appear to improve long-term mental health of the adolescents, including suicide risk.[14]

8. Psychotherapy for underlying mental health issues such as depression, anxiety, and autism, as well as prior emotional trauma or abuse should be the first line of treatment for these vulnerable children experiencing discomfort with their biological sex.

9. England, Scotland, Sweden, Denmark, and Finland have all recognized the scientific research demonstrating that the social, hormonal and surgical interventions are not only unhelpful but are harmful. So, these European countries have paused protocols and are instead focusing on evaluating and treating the underlying and preceding mental health concerns.

10. Other medical organizations are adhering to the evidence-based medicine documented in the Cass Review Final Report.

The constitution of the National Health Service in England will be updated to state, “We are defining sex as biological sex.”[15]

The European Society of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry issued a document titled “ESCAP statement on the care for children and adolescents with gender dysphoria: an urgent need for safeguarding clinical, scientific, and ethical standards.”

In this paper, they stated, “The standards of evidence-based medicine must ensure the best and safest possible care for each individual in this highly vulnerable group of children and adolescents. As such, ESCAP calls for healthcare providers not to promote experimental and unnecessarily invasive treatments with unproven psycho-social effects and, therefore, to adhere to the “primum-nil-nocere” (first, do no harm) principle”.[16]

11. Health care professionals around the world are also acknowledging the urgent need to protect children from harmful “gender-affirming” interventions.

In a letter to the British newspaper, The Guardian, sixteen psychologists, some of whom worked at the Tavistock Center for Gender Identity Development Service, acknowledged the role clinical psychologists played in placing children on an “irreversible medical pathway that in most cases was inappropriate.”[17]

In the United States, a group of psychiatrists, physicians and other health care workers wrote an open Letter to the American Psychiatric Association (APA), calling on the APA to explain why it glaringly ignored many scientific developments in gender-related care and to consider its responsibility to promote and protect patients’ safety, mental and physical health.[18]

12. Despite all the above evidence that gender affirming treatments are not only unhelpful, but are harmful, and despite the knowledge that the adolescent brain is immature, professional medical organizations in the United States continue to promote these interventions. Further, they state that legislation to protect children from harmful interventions is dangerous since it interferes with necessary medical care for children and adolescents.

The American Psychological Association states it is the largest association of psychologists worldwide. The organization released a policy statement in February 2024 stating, “The APA opposes state bans on gender-affirming care, which are contrary to the principles of evidence-based healthcare, human rights, and social justice.”[19]

The Endocrine Society responded to the Cass Review by reaffirming their stance. “We stand firm in our support of gender-affirming care…. NHS England’s recent report, the Cass Review, does not contain any new research that would contradict the recommendations made in our Clinical Practice Guideline on gender-affirming care.”[20]

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Board of Directors in August 2023, voted to reaffirm their 2018 policy statement on gender-affirming care. They did decide to authorize a systematic review but only because they were concerned “about restrictions to access to health care with bans on gender-affirming care in more than 20 states.”[21]

Of note, Dr. Hilary Cass called out the AAP for “holding on to a position that is now demonstrated to be out of date by multiple systematic reviews.”[22]

In Conclusion

Therefore, given the recent research and the revelations of the harmful approach advocated by WPATH and its followers in the United States, we, the undersigned, call upon the medical professional organizations of the United States, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the  Endocrine Society, the Pediatric Endocrine Society, American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry to follow the science and their European professional colleagues and immediately stop the promotion of social affirmation, puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgeries for children and adolescents who experience distress over their biological sex.  Instead, these organizations should recommend comprehensive evaluations and therapies aimed at identifying and addressing underlying psychological co-morbidities and neurodiversity that often predispose to and accompany gender dysphoria. We also encourage the physicians who are members of these professional organizations to contact their leadership and urge them to adhere to the evidence-based research now available.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Erin Reed at Erin In The Morning:

On Wednesday, Dr. Hillary Cass gave her first American interview with NPR about the Cass Review. The review, which appears heavily politicized and lends credence to debunked theories about being transgender, such as "social contagion," is being used as a pretext to ban care in the United Kingdom. In the interview, Cass called for "other ways" of managing dysphoria besides transitioning and blamed being trans on factors such as autism and pornography. However, one particular point of note was her response to a question about the evidence supporting gender-affirming care, where she suggested that the real measure of transition success should be the employment status of transgender people. When asked about “actual outcomes” for the effectiveness of cross-sex hormones in transgender youth, Cass sated that there was a need for long followups to see if transgender people thrive on hormones, and that the outcomes that she was most interested in included employment, “getting out of the house,” and relationships. See her answer here:

[CHAKRABARTI: Regarding cross sex hormones, the systematic review authors said there is a lack of high-quality research assessing the actual outcomes of cross sex hormones. CASS: Yes, because we need to follow up for much longer than a year or two to know if you continue to thrive on those hormones in the longer term. And we also need to know, are those young people in relationships? Are they getting out of the house? Are they in employment? Do they have a satisfactory sex life?] It is important to note that all of these potential outcome measurements may be heavily influenced by transphobic sentiments in society. Should transgender people be judged on their ability to be "employed" or their willingness to "get out of the house," their own discrimination may then be used against their ability to access medication. According to the National Center for Transgender Equality, more than one in four transgender people have lost a job due to bias, and three-quarters report experiencing workplace discrimination. Therefore, it is inaccurate to blame transgender people and their medication for what appears to be an issue with societal discrimination.

In recent years, many reports have emerged showing high levels of satisfaction and low levels of detransition for transgender people. A recent report in the 2022 US transgender survey shows that out of 90,000 transgender people, less than 1% report feeling less satisfied after beginning gender affirming hormone therapy, with the vast majority feeling “a lot more satisfied.” Detransition appears to be similarly rare. One recent study out of Australia found complete data on 548 of 552 transgender patients and discovered only 1% of transgender youth detransitioned over several years before being transferred to adult services. Another study showed that transgender youth are stable in their gender identity 5 years after transitioning, with only 2.5% reidentifying as their assigned sex at birth. Even Cass’s own report found less than 10 detransitioners out of the 3,000 trans youth patients in England, which led to her claiming that the real reason she didn’t find more detransitioners is because adult clinics refused to provide private patient data.

Dr. Hilary Cass, the woman behind the anti-trans Cass Review, made absurd claims that a person’s transition success should be measured by their employment status instead of satisfaction and joy.

See Also:

Assigned Media: TWIBS: Cass Says Porn Makes You Trans

[doberbutts]

Things you may have missed:

>had top surgery scheduled March 12th

>top surgery cancelled literally the day of because my insurance rejected my therapist letter the day prior. surgeon refused to take any steps towards patient advocacy.

>top surgery re-scheduled to June 21st

>top surgery cancelled literally 3 days prior due to the same fucking shit even though I followed the instructions the insurance told me to to a T. surgeon again refused to file for an appeal or request a peer-to-peer. told me just to do what insurance said. I asked why insurance was not following the WPATH guidelines. was not given an answer.

>had a consult with a different surgeon today.

>oh my fucking god what a difference. I told him about the fuckery and he was absolutely flabberghasted and told me he'd never even heard of a doctor who would not allow their patient their right to an appeal of an insurance decision, especially knowing that many times insurances will authorize once the doctor yells at them about it. I also found his bedside manner to be much better and he was much easier to work with for projected outcomes

>tentatively looking at some time in November. Maybe for my 32nd birthday I'll give myself the gift of No Tits

[mybeautifulchristianjourney]

There have been numerous reports over the years that have found that “gender affirming care” is not based in scientific fact and is harmful for those who partake in it — especially children. However, two recent factors have served to significantly increase the urgency of those calling for an end to gender transition procedures.

In May, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) files were leaked, which “revealed that the clinicians who shape how ‘gender medicine’ is regulated and practiced around the world consistently violate medical ethics and informed consent.” Additionally, a groundbreaking...

[feminist-furby-freak]

I know I shouldn’t surprised anymore but I’m still shocked that no one is talking about the WPATH files leak!!!!

[darkmaga-returns]

Story at a Glance: •Irreversible hormone blockers have dozens of severe side effects which affect between 5-50% of users. Millions have been injured by these drugs, and dozens of lawsuits have been filed by those they permanently disabled.

•Originally approved as an end of the line option for advanced prostate cancer, their use skyrocketed once they were priced so thousands of dollars could be made each time they were administered. •A wide range of dubious uses were then concocted for these drugs such as treating a wide range of gynecologic conditions and blocking puberty.

•WPATH writes the guidelines for transgender medicine and exuberantly endorses giving hormone blockers to children while simultaneously denying and downplaying the dangers of this practice. Recent leaks revealed WPATH knows how dangerous this is and that they are in fact conducting a giant experiment.