World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) Files

I know it was brought up in the sports thread and not this one but it seems more suited for here. The UN special rapporteur for violence against women and girls, Reem Alsalem, has put out a statement about the Australian court ruling that sex is changeable and how it could further erode women's sex based rights

https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/09/special-rapporteur-decries-australias-federal-court-ruling-further-eroding

Welp. Another of those "things that never happen" just happened again.

At what point does somebody in charge start to consider that maybe defining one category of men as inherently "the most oppressed" and thus putting them in unquestioned, and unquestionable, positions of authority over the genuinely vulnerable like children was always going to attract, well, men wanting power over children?

They used to become priests to get access to children. Now they can just declare they are women.

And to be clear, I am NOT saying that trans women are all abusers, no more than priests or teachers were all abusers.

I'm saying that when society creates categories of men who escape the normal rules that are imposed on men to keep women and children safe from abusers, then abusers will want to exploit the opportunity that affords them.

(I fully expect to be sanctioned for "being a dick" for this. Because that rule clearly only applies to men. Women and children can be abused, raped, beaten up for sport even, by men - and me criticising any of that makes me the "dick". The irony of it.)

"Female sex is an age-dependent risk modifier, rather than a risk factor per se."

What's the difference between a modifier and a factor? My guess is a factor is something taken seriously. A modifier? Not so much.

Just parsing the language, that's how it comes across.

And of course age is a factor too. But, they're saying it's just another modifier.

I'm not sure this is compatible with the ESC's gender policy either

• Principle 5. Understanding the impact of sex and gender on cardiovascular biology and medicineis relevant in clinical research. This relevance extends to all phases of biomedical researchincluding preclinical research, ESC leadership, corporate identity, ESC publications, congresses,and educational activities, as well as the creation and dissemination of scientific statements andguidelines.

Here they have taken sex out of a "scientific statement and guideline" when it was known to be relevant.

By the way. I'll just say there could be sound reasons for removing sex from the risk factors. But, the excuses they provided don't stand up to reason:

a) it's too much trouble to distinguish between men and women, and

b) gender ideology

You suggested using a term like "biological female", "female" or even "adult human female" to describe real women in contexts like that video about women's heart health. Anything without the word woman it seems. Even "biological women" is discouraged due to being exclusionary.

https://www.eviemagazine.com/post/college-student-graded-zero-assignment-term-biological-women

"Olivia, this is a solid proposal. However, the terms 'biological women' are exclusionary and are not allowed in this course as they further reinforce heteronormativity."

On the risk factors for stroke or AF, I note that neither of us is a cardiologist. So us arguing about the details is a waste of time. Though I did cite an actual cardiologist (a woman) who is not happy with the change. So, if you can find another one prepared to defend it with better reasons that the two absolutely shıt reasons they have already provided, that would be great.

When are women going to realise they are being gaslit here?

By the way, I posted a screenshot of her post because that's all I had. It didn't mean you had to reply with that massive font, display filling, screenshot of your own …

I only suggested that plodder because YOU asked the question - what other word could they have used in the context of heart health? I wasn’t actually being serious in suggesting they could use alternatives, and that should have been clear from my suggestion that the use of those words would have them come off like they were on day release. The point was about women’s heart health, not about gender studies.

And that student making a complaint about being expected to use certain terms in a course on GENDER STUDIES, really doesn’t have a point. The fact that it’s a GENDER STUDIES course means it is entirely political… just not her politics:

"Olivia, this is a solid proposal," the feedback read, per FoxNews. "However, the terms ‘biological women’ are exclusionary and are not allowed in this course as they further reinforce heteronormativity. Please reassess your topic and edit it to focus on women’s rights (not just "females") and I’ll regrade." 

While the college student said she has not seen the professor pushing this gender ideology on the rest of the online class, she recalled another banter over privilege.

"In a discussion, I had said that it's not OK to generalize and say that all White men are privileged and she came back and said that it is important to recognize that fact," she recalled. 

The University of Cincinnati reportedly said Krolczyk's dispute is being reviewed through its established policies and processes. Krolczyk told Fox News she met with the school’s gender equity group and they agreed she would do her project with her original proposal. A new professor will grade her work and a file will be sent to the dean. 

https://www.foxnews.com/media/college-gender-studies-professor-allegedly-fails-student-using-banned-term-biological-women

And as it turns out, she got an A grade when her project was re-examined:

https://www.foxnews.com/sports/college-student-gets-a-class-allegedly-receiving-zero-proposal-using-term-biological-women.amp

How useful her academic qualifications in Gender Studies could be outside of Academia, is anyone’s guess really.

On the risk factors for stroke and AF, neither of us needs to be a cardiologist to be able to read and understand the information being presented. Frankly I’d always assumed that you would have a much better understanding of all this stuff than I do because I’d formed the impression that you’d some sort of background in medicine, whereas me I’m just a couch potato. There’s no need to defend the guidelines, regardless of the fact that one cardiologist sought offence where none was intended (doesn’t matter whether they’re a man or a woman, from their LinkedIn profile it’s clear they have their own biases when they refer to all genders), but I wouldn’t read too much into the fact that the ECS main source of funding comes from the Healthcare Industry either - it’s just an indication that they too have their own biases.

The Irish Heart Foundation have their own biases too, as do RTE in attempting to pass off the information as new research, when it’s actually been known about for some time that women are at significantly higher risk of cardiovascular disease than men, and how the symptoms of cardiovascular disease present differently in women and men, let alone the idea of comparing it to rates of breast cancer in women to make the point in order to increase awareness among the general public about cardiovascular disease in women. As I said - most people will have understood the point without your needling about whether anyone is referring to women, or females, or biological females, or adult human females. That nonsense bickering over terminology just seems unnecessary IMO. I assume neither of us have academic qualifications relating to Gender Studies either? 😒

We obviously have a very different understanding of the term ‘gaslit’ and gaslighting though, when I don’t agree with your assertion that women are being gaslit and don’t realise it. Seems rather bloody convenient for your argument to employ circular reasoning - you’ve managed to establish that women are being gaslit, by virtue of the idea that they just don’t realise they’re being gaslit. That however, is simply not the case. Women aren’t being gaslit, because very few women are convinced that they are victims in the first place, which is a prerequisite for academic success in Gender Studies courses. I’d give that student an A for effort in playing the victim, before I’d ever force myself to read the kind of crap I imagine she submitted for evaluation.

Nah I get you man, but that’s kinda the point - you have to go looking for this stuff to be offended by it, whereas it just doesn’t map to reality for most people under normal circumstances and conditions. That’s why I could completely understand where you were coming from in it occurring to you when watching the RTE news piece that they’re not nailing down the issue to only refer to as you put it - real women*.

The reason why the term ‘biological woman’ would rankle the most hard-nosed of Feminists is pretty simple - it’s a term that Feminists have sought to distinguish themselves from as it conflates biology and sociology as an explanation of women’s oppression in society. Simone de Beauvoir would be doing 9,000RPM in her grave were she exposed to what has become of Feminist ideology today. I don’t know if you’ve read it, but if you do ever get your hands on a copy, her seminal work “The Second Sex” is an absolute cracker. She goes damn hard, but it’s worth it IMO:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Second_Sex

https://philosophynow.org/issues/69/Becoming_A_Woman_Simone_de_Beauvoir_on_Female_Embodiment

She was a tour de force in philosophy before she submitted herself to Sartre and it all went a bit sideways:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/jun/10/gender.politicsphilosophyandsociety

Then again when she wrote of birth control, she, like most women, couldn’t have known then what is now known (and remains unknown) about hormonal birth control and the long term effects it has on women:

Although hormonal contraceptives are safely used by more than 300 million women worldwide (as of a 2019 study by the United Nations), there has been minimal research on their downstream physiological and behavioral effects. 

Past research has found hormonal contraceptive pills may increase women’s risk for chronically elevated inflammation, which carries the long-term risk of developing illnesses such as cancer, cardiovascular disease, and autoimmune disorders, as well as potential mood disorders, including depression. However, the mechanisms behind this association have remained understudied and unclear, Mengelkoch said. 

https://www.uclahealth.org/news/release/study-shows-how-birth-control-pills-affect-womens

*note that I don’t take issue with the term, use whatever terms you’re comfortable with, I’ll still understand what you mean, it’s sometimes used by women too to distinguish themselves from other women, though I’ve generally only seen it used on social media, whereas the idea of real men has been around for a while, generally used by both men and women to characterise what are their desirable characteristics in men - my old man was fond of saying “we’ll make a man out of you yet!”, as though his input and control over the process somehow extended beyond his participation in my conception 🤨

Looking at a programme about Amy Downden who appeared on Strictly and is currently battling breast cancer. A really moving programme and quite informative until the end, making sure women are checking ourselves for anything that might need looking at:

"Check Your Chests"

So I assume that when I next get my mammogram call it will be from "ChestCheck Ireland" ???

Stop erasing women!

Interesting thread here from a clinical psychologist about the effects of puberty blockers on the developing brain:

The hypothesis of PBs as a neutral "pause" to allow gender-distressed teens "time to think" is being/has been completely disproven, because that was based only on the effects of blocking the physical aspects of puberty. Which is fine for precocious puberty - you don't want the brain of a four year old going into teenage rebellion mode.

But unsurprisingly - if you think about it for more than 30 seconds - all the personality and attitude stuff that occurs along with puberty is a necessary part of growing up and becoming an autonomous adult. It's a period of massive brain as well as bodily changes, and blocking it during that "window of opportunity" that occurs at adolescence is very likely to have permanent effects on the brain that may not be able to be undone by allowing the hormones to kick in a few years later.

Same as babies who don't learn language during the early window of opportunity for language development, eg because of untreated deafness, can be left with a language/communication deficit all their lives - and that's despite a well-developed system of speech therapists. There's no real equivalent for delayed pubertal brain development, and anyway, we don't deliberately make kids deaf for a few years. That would be an ethical nightmare.

And then there's the effect of the body never going through that physiological puberty, but instead being put straight onto cross sex hormones - which is what the vast majority of kids put onto PBs do.

We don't let them smoke or have tattoos at that age because they may come to regret those decisions as adults - but people warning about the experimental nature of blocking a child's natural puberty are treated as "phobes" and have been fired from their jobs, when that can be achieved by the activists.

I think I'd missed the fact that the Dutch protocol wasn't originally about "time to think", I had just assumed it was. That's even worse then - changing your fundamental hypothesis in hindsight invalidates the whole study. You should never do that. You take your new hypothesis and start a new set of tests for a new study. That definitely hasn't been done - and follow-up information is almost universally terrible in these studies anyway.

That’s a really good article, @CatFromHue . I’m reading the bit about the London Clinic and how patient pressure led to the original head of the clinic being removed and replaced by someone who was happy to drop the original watchful waiting approach for children in favour of Polly Carmichael and enthusiastic adoption of the Dutch Protocol, despite the absence of evidence.

Just on the term “biological woman” I can understand why people (women) don’t like it. But, it’s just that the ideology is a rejection of biology, there seems to be no alternative but to use it sometimes. Brenda Power touched on it on Brendan O’Connor’s radio program yesterday and in her article in the Sunday Times. They were mostly talking about that astonishing (almost unbelievable) story about the SPHE schoolbook, and as an aside Power mentioned that the rest of the book needs to be looked at as well, especially on foot of the statement in it that sex is assigned at birth, when biology tells us, in fact it is determined at conception.

They’re all authoritative medical and scientific bodies Enduro 😁

It’s just a question of which body carries the most authoritative political, social, economic and legal clout, with each body vying for recognition, representation, validation and legitimacy.

How tedious 🙄

They’re all authoritative medical and scientific bodies Enduro 😁

You cite the name of the organisation, who they represent, and the description of the organisation… what’s your point?

Third time, seeing as that’s twice now you’ve ignored the fact that I said authoritative medical and scientific bodies, in response to your post about how:

It looks like a repeat of the usual clash between TRA ideology and medical science, along with the climate of intimidation and fear being repeated yet again.

They’re all authoritative medical and scientific bodies Enduro 😁

It’s just a question of which body carries the most authoritative political, social, economic and legal clout, with each body vying for recognition, representation, validation and legitimacy.

The BMA are an authoritative body for doctors in the UK, as they say themselves. I don’t need to contact them at all, I don’t care what authority they give themselves, because I’m not a member of their organisation. The complainant in the article you linked to however, is:

Writing in the Observer, Davis, who has been a member of the association’s council for 18 years, says: “The BMA now finds itself isolated in its opposition to Cass, and with its reputation and integrity damaged.”

It doesn't matter how often you repeat it.

Clearly.

You're still provably incorrect.

You haven’t proven anything, let alone that I am incorrect.

Your point was that -

It looks like a repeat of the usual clash between TRA ideology and medical science, along with the climate of intimidation and fear being repeated yet again.

My point is that the BMA are just one medical body among many medical and scientific bodies clashing over differences of opinion with regard to their own interpretation of medical and scientific evidence and the authority which they assume in their respective fields. Some of their members are both TRA, and anti-TRA, and a whole bunch who couldn’t care less about the whole thing.

For example outside of the UK, the British Medical Journal points out that the Cass Review is largely ignored by medical bodies in the US:

Yet the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and Endocrine Society have stood by their guidelines, while the American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have remained largely silent about Cass.

https://bmjgroup.com/cass-review-on-gender-medicine-largely-ignored-in-the-us/#

Scientific bodies too, don’t have much interest in the whole debacle, and those that do, are more interested in arguing over the research being conducted, how it’s conducted, what criteria should be considered, what policies should be applied, etc, etc, all the while suggesting that more research is required and in order to do that, more funding is required (quelle surprise? 🤨):

McHugh has gained a following among social conservatives, while incensing LGBT advocates with comments such as calling transgender people "counterfeit."

Last year he co-authored a review of the scientific literature published in The New Atlantis journal, asserting there was scant evidence to suggest sexual orientation and gender identity were biologically determined.

The article drew a rebuke from nearly 600 academics and clinicians who called it misleading.

McHugh told Reuters he was "unmoved" by his critics and says he doubts additional research will reveal a biological cause.

“If it were obvious," he said, "they would have found it long ago."

https://www.reuters.com/article/world/born-this-way-researchers-explore-the-science-of-gender-identity-idUSKBN1AJ0EG/

I didn’t shift the goalposts, they’re still where they are. I didn’t claim the BMA are a scientific organisation either. They are a medical organisation, and my point was that what the whole debacle looks like to you is one thing (a repeat of the usual clash between medical science and TRA ideology), whereas what it actually is, and what it always was, and what it will continue to be, are authoritative medical and scientific bodies clashing over a question of which body carries the most authoritative political, social, economic and legal clout, with each body vying for recognition, representation, validation and legitimacy.

I’m still not shifting the goalposts when I give you (because it is only you, and not ‘us’) an example of the same effect demonstrated by two more authoritative bodies - WPATH and Intersex Human Rights Australia, where basically the IHRA told WPATH in no uncertain terms to naff off when WPATH tried to subsume intersex under the transgender moniker in the WPATH SOC8:

https://ihra.org.au/39498/submission-wpath-soc8-2021/

It is something they claim, given that they are an authoritative medical organisation with authority vested in the councils of both organisations to represent the interests of their membership, which is something at least one of the members of the organisation in question takes issue with - the position of the organisation of which she is a member:

Doctors on the BMA’s ruling council who have dared to challenge its criticism of the Cass review have been subject to “abuse” and its decision-making body is now shrouded in “a climate of fear and intimidation”, Davis claims.

Writing in the Observer, Davis, who has been a member of the association’s council for 18 years, says: “The BMA now finds itself isolated in its opposition to Cass, and with its reputation and integrity damaged.”

Clearly the BMA does not find itself isolated in its opposition to Cass, as I have been able to demonstrate that the organisation is not on their own in their opposition to Cass. Rather it is Ms. Davis who finds herself in an isolated position in her opposition to the position of the BMA, with other council members only talking on condition of anonymity, and claims that the refusal by the BMA to endorse Cass’s findings means the reputation of the entire medical profession is now threatened:

Other council members, talking on condition of anonymity, have shared similar concerns about the organisation’s standing, and the potential harm it could suffer over its internal strife on trans issues.

The “toxic atmosphere” around BMA council debates has left some of its 69 members fearful of speaking up to share their views on the issue, Davis says. Its refusal to endorse Cass’s findings means the reputation of the entire medical profession is now “threatened”, she adds.

I’d suggest Ms. Davis is, to use an expression she’s familiar with - over-egging the pudding.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/over-egg-the-pudding#

They’re both a trade union, and a professional body for doctors in the UK. That’s what they say about themselves, first line in your own earlier link. This means they are an authoritative body, which represents their members, headed by a ruling council. I don’t know did you even bother to read the original article you linked to, or the other opinion pieces by the same doctor who’s a member of the ruling council, but she makes the same point:

The British Medical Association is both a trade union and a professional organisation. Professional activities such as its successful campaigns around seatbelt legislation and smoking have added weight to its standing as a union. It is not noted for drama and histrionics.

So there was significant surprise when its governing body, the BMA council, recently voted to reject the recommendations of the Cass review, an independent review commissioned to look at NHS gender identity services in England, which was accepted in full by the last government and its successor.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/sep/07/bma-cass-report-gender-identity-services

The GMC are another authoritative body. I was wondering why you brought them up because they’re of no value to your nonsense, they’ve got plenty of their own issues to deal with:

https://www.medscape.co.uk/viewarticle/dysfunctional-gmc-labelled-not-fit-purpose-after-latest-2022a100260x

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/10/trans-doctors-register-change-gender/

I don’t expect nor need you to trust me at all, I don’t even expect you to be civil given you’re winding up to fly off the handle and fire off abuse now any minute as you’ve done on many, many previous occasions when I’ve pointed out your previous efforts have amounted to nothing. You can be God for all I care, I still don’t have any interest in your dancing on the head of a pin nonsense rather than even so much as making an effort to contribute constructively to the discussion.

There’s nothing to admit to being wrong about. You said this:

It looks like a repeat of the usual clash between TRA ideology and medical science, along with the climate of intimidation and fear being repeated yet again.

(and note I didn’t even have an issue with your using inverted commas around the word “official” in relation to BMAs official position, I left it out as it would’ve simply been nitpicking)

I said this:

They’re all authoritative medical and scientific bodies Enduro 😁

It’s just a question of which body carries the most authoritative political, social, economic and legal clout, with each body vying for recognition, representation, validation and legitimacy.

And from that you started with this nonsense:

That's just plain wrong. The BMA is a trade union, not an authoritative scientific body.

Which bore no relation whatsoever to what I’d previously said. The BMA is just one authoritative body, the GMC are another, they both operate in the UK, and you tried to create the impression that there is any distinction between TRA ideology and medical science, when in practice, and in principle, there clearly is not - none, nada, zip, zilch.

They’re inextricably interconnected, intertwined, whatever, because fundamentally they are about the people behind the ideas, and the agreement or disagreement among them about the application and utility of those ideas and principles in the process of scientific research and the practice of medicine.

The Cass Review was by no means the be-all and end-all of anything, it was nothing more than a review commissioned by the NHS to inform policy decisions in relation to the provision of transgender healthcare services in the UK. The BMA chose to reject its findings, that’s their official position, no need for the inverted commas, and it’s a position that so far, only one of the members of it’s ruling council has publicly declared in the media that because the organisation of which she is a member haven’t endorsed Cass, that somehow this means the medical profession is under threat.

It looks like a clash of TRA ideology and medical science to you, only because of your own biases. To the medical profession, it’s business as usual.

Credit where credit is due. Scientific American is indeed an extremely well respected journal. However, the key sentence is at the end of the article :

This is an opinion and analysis article, and the views expressed by the author or authors are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

It's an opinion piece which reflects the views and politics of the author(s). No more than that. As such the article itself is subject to similar biases which the Cass report is being accused of (but without the extensive scientific, medical and political backing attained by the Cass report)