World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) Files

Attack the substance if you can, rather than dismiss on account of an author.

Unless of course you can't counter it, which explains why you have posted what you have

What is Environmental Progress?

There is 241 page document published by "Environmental Progress", as well as various other files.

I assume you have read all documents including the source documents and findings?

Seems legit to me: the front page has a number of environmental projects. There's also a California group working on the Fentanyl scandal there. The WPATH files don't seem to be particularly highlighted at all:

But of course shooting the messenger is always so much simpler than dealing with the issue itself.

I had to do a search for the WPATH files, but here they are with direct links:

So anyone who's claiming the original files aren't linked to is just wrong. I'm sure they'll all immediately look at them so we won't have to reply on tweets from people like Gerald Posner (who has written exposés into, among other things, the US Oxycontin scandal and the Sackler family's role in it).

So now it's not an anti trans NGO masquerading as an environmental group, but a pro fossil fuels group masquerading as an environmental group.

That's progress I suppose. 😄

What they actually say about themselves is that they show case a wide ranging group of opinions, rather than push a single "authorised" view. It's surprising to me how controversial an idea that is for some people.

Anyway, now that we've established that they are NOT just an anti trans NGO masquerading as an environmentalist group, and that they have done that shocking thing of making to information on WPATH available for anyone to consult, maybe you'd put aside how much you dislike differences of opinion being allowed to be expressed for the moment and consider the information the WPATH leaks have put into the public domain?

Things like doctors seriously looking for information as to whether it's okay for a man to take viagra while he is "breastfeeding" a baby thanks to a cocktail of drugs, at least one of which is known to cause heart problems and to pass into breast milk?

When women are breastfeeding they're told not to take aspirin FFS, and not to eat cabbage, never mind drink alcohol - but unless there's actual data about the risks of giving viagra to babies, the default position is to try to enable the man to do this??

Why? It's obviously not about the baby's best interests. It's about "validating" a man's feelings. In fact the proof that they know he's a man is that a woman would never be allowed prioritise her feelings and "need for validation" over the baby's needs. Never.

It seems to be culture wars group.

Who funds them?

I have no idea what they are, that's why I asked.

They would be some culture war lobby. Which is always a red flag. Along with the website.

Where does the funding come from??

I never suggested it was.

Oh look a transgender panic thread based from a trans panic account on Twitter sharing trans panic conspiracy theories. Better sit down for this

I sincerely hope readers of this thread can see who and what the ideological authoritarians are, I mean it's quite obvious 'shoot the messenger' is the height of their intellectual prowess.

Yes, sorry I got confused who I was replying to: it wasn't you said "An anti-trans front NGO. Call yourself something totally unrelated and innocuous to deflect the underlying reality."

Why do you think they're a culture war lobby, and more importantly, what does it really matter considering they have made the source material available to all to judge for themselves? Is the source material now itself dependent on who has put it out there??

IOW, can we discuss the actual issues, rather than badmouth the people who've made it available for public scrutiny? That seems very much like shooting the messenger.

Well again, I'm not reading 100s of pages from a group that raises on visual inspection numerous read flags. Nuclear Great, Solar kills Turtles. It's hardly a well of unbiased prose is it?

I assume you have read the 241 page document and all the associated other documents provided?

Thats a weird take that the source of the materials shouldn't be up for debate and should be just accepted at face value without any questioning/analysis/investigating

Almost 900 transgender people in Ireland officially changed their gender in less than seven years

The hysteria must be Fruedian in it's nature.

What is this obsession with transgender people that a certain section of society has?

I'll bet that the vast majority of them have never encountered a trans person in real life, ever, nor has anything a trans person ever done had an affect on their life.

It's a really bizarre obsession.

Where it regards the US: Fear is easier than good policy

Nail on the head.

I can fully accept lobby groups for Nuclear, fracking, fossil fuel industry, etc. Because at least there something tangible in it for them.

But getting the weak minded whipped into a frenzy over a fraction of a fraction of society to garner votes is beyond insidious and obviously extremely dangerous.

We're not in the US. I'm more concerned about women like Sonia Appleby losing their jobs for expressing concerns about child safeguarding, even though that was her actual job, or Allison Bailey, who was sanctioned for daring to set up an association for Lesbians, Gays and Bisexuals. Or the women in Limerick prison who are constantly exposed to verbal abuse from male sex offenders, on the pretext that those particular sex offenders think they are women. And, to come to this particular topic, I'm concerned about the fact that WPATH is constantly cited by the NHS and HSE as the "evidence-based" protocol for treating children with gender dysphoria, when doctors involved with WPATH are clearly aware that there is little to no real evidence for treatment that is often irreversible - but they are doing it anyway.

If you think that's a "trans panic", then presumably you think the whole thalidomide scandal was a storm in a teacup?

As for a "fraction of society" - women are 51% of society. We are entitled to rights too. And children are entitled to be kept safe, no matter how few of them there are.

No, that's a weird take on what I said: someone complained that posters were posting tweets instead of the source material. So now when the source material is made available for discussion, that's wrong too, apparently?? Why don't you say what you disagree with in the original material?

Or say what exactly would satisfy you? "No debate"?

I said it's "concerning" and "may have caused" it. Not clutching pearls or leaping to anything, thanks. Can't you just have a discussion without misogynistic tropes and hyperbole?

Misogynistic? I have no idea how you leapt to that now.

I'm replying to the content of the telegraph article thanks. It is hyperbolic if you want to use those terms, citing someone's anecdotes while citing people crowing about double-blind standards, the author of the piece states firmly that those hormone treatments caused the cancer when there isn't sufficient evidence to back that conclusion definitively. To your credit, you said it may have caused it, the author didn't even bother making that journalistic distinction in their opener.