40 - WPATH, Part V - More Bizarre Recommendations
In Part IV of this series, we saw how WPATH removed the chapter on ethics from their 8th edition of “Standards of Care for the Health of Transgender and Gender Diverse People” (SOC8). And we reviewed their decision to include a chapter equating eunuchs with a gender identity. In her interview with Benjamin Boyce, Psychologist Stella O’Malley mentioned the following regarding the references used in that chapter:
And in their SOC8 - so there's an awful lot of references so it looks at first glance…. It's clearly an awful lot of money went into this and in SOC8 they have obviously, they've got loads of references. And the references to the eunuch linked to websites with pornography on child eunuchs. It's like, okay, you've completely and utterly discredited yourself.[1]
Benjamin hosted a subsequent interview with Genevieve Gluck, who describes herself as “…a feminist researcher and essayist and host of the podcast Women's Voices.” Gluck has researched the above-mentioned links, some containing content by activists who lobbied to include the chapter on eunuchs in the SOC8. She provided the evidence for this in the above-linked video, and in an article posted on Substack (the link to this can be found in the video description). In her post she writes:
The WPATH linked through to The Eunuch Archives in their document, despite the disturbing erotica posted on the site, which includes violent castration fantasies that involve children.
I listened to the interview and scrolled through the article she wrote. It is not something I have the heart to recommend reading. There are very disturbing images (several pixelated, but still horrible) and stories throughout. Referencing this material is indeed discrediting for WPATH.
Removal of Age Requirements
The last bizarre move made by WPATH with SOC8 is described by Stella O’Malley[2]:
And they did some extraordinary things with the release of their standards of care. And it's not a standard of care and I need to stop calling it that. With their, with their guidance they…at the start they…released the document and they had minimum ages on it.
And so, you know they said a minimum age - I'll say it from memory. It was like “A minimum age for cross-sex hormones is 14.” So that means a 14-year-old girl could get testosterone. Her voice would deepen - she would never be able to lighten that voice again. Her vagina would atrophy. She would get some very masculine features. …and you know the testosterone would do its job and it does a phenomenal job on girls to make them look very masculine.
And at 15 they could get a mastectomy, and other procedures at 16. …So, they had a very specific 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, what procedures you could get. And it was almost like a shopping list, frankly, of body modification. There's like all sorts of not just, you know, the vaginoplasty and phalloplasty, mastectomies… …brow lift and all sorts of…calf modification. Around your lips, your eyes, your face…. All surgical procedures and it’s, it's shocking how many procedures there are out there.
And a few hours, a very short time after they released this. So, there were 10 years in the making of the SOC8 - 10 years in the making. About two years very seriously writing it – apparently, apparently taking guidance from clinicians, from doctors, from psychiatrists, from psychologists, from surgeons working in the field. Talking the public and their talking to trans people. Taking in all the different people's views. They had something like 119, 120 signatories on this massive document that they'd been writing for the last two years and then they released it with the age requirements.
And frankly a very short time later - I think it was less than a day, certainly very, very short. They suddenly walloped in, removed all the age requirements, and said, “Sorry, correction. Don't mind that we're taking away all age requirements and let's forget that ever happened.”
And it's like, sorry? You've been two years writing this. How did you get the 119 signatories of that document to sign off on the very sudden removal of those minimum age requirements? How did that actually happen?
Because if I signed a document…. If I signed a document with minimum age requirements to be part of this big huge event of the release of SOC8 - they had a conference around it. It was a very big deal. And then you know a very short time later suddenly the document that I've signed that has minimum age requirements was removed. Suddenly the minimum age requirements? Surely those people didn't sign off on it.
Benjamin Boyce: Were there reasonings for why they removed…?
Stella O’Malley: It seemed they said quite explicitly that this was around insurance, that this was an insurance reason. And also, they alluded to the fact that surgeons had already been defying the minimum age requirements from SOC7. So, they were already…there were surgeons who were not like following - they thought like 16 or 15 was too old to start giving mastectomies. And so, there's actual research now that 12-year-olds and 13-year-olds have had mastectomies. It's even in the New York Times today [Oct. 11, 2022]. Funny enough an Irish surgeon[3], Dr. Sidhbh Gallagher - she lives in America. And she is probably one of the most prolific surgeons… …she said today in the New York Times…. …she performs about, was it 40? Forty a month, 40 mastectomies. …I was working out, that's like over two, probably over two a day, I don't know how many days a week. That's a lot.
…To…release something and very quickly take out minimum age requirements makes me think this is not a serious organization. They've discredited themselves by doing that. Because how could you study something for two years, get everybody to sign it, and then suddenly delete something as big…. That's not a “correction” …that's an ideological change of gear. …It's a big difference to remove minimum age requirements.
An article by World Magazine adds concerns about the recommendations undermining parental authority:
The WPATH policies also frown on family members who challenge a child’s newfound gender identity or encourage a child to conform to his biological sex. In a section discussing the timing of puberty blockers, the policy welcomes parents “unless their involvement is determined to be harmful or unnecessary to the adolescent.” In cases where parents are “too rejecting” of their child’s wishes, WPATH’s policy says “youth may require the engagement of larger systems of advocacy and support to move forward with the necessary support and care.”[4]
So, no recommendations on ethics, a lack of evidence-based research, the systematic removal of mental health clinician’s input, an attempt to create a gender identity out of serious body dysmorphia, direct links to child pornography in the reference section, undermining parental authority, and the sudden removal of age requirements without the approval of those who signed off on the document, cloud the appropriateness of SOC8 and the credibility of WPATH itself. SOC8 also includes circular reasoning in its definitions, as “nonbinary” is defined as “people who identify as nonbinary.” The term “medically necessary” also appears frequently in this document, which is a key phrase to gain insurance coverage. However, this is also often accompanied by prioritizing the client’s desire. As in, “gender-affirming hormones” are medically necessary unless they are “not desired.” If a client’s desire is the deciding factor, then the treatment is not needed, it is an elective procedure.1 Sasha Ayad, a therapist specializing in adolescents with gender dysphoria, stated, "Desire is synonymous with need in this whole document."
In the last part of this series, we will look at resources you can use to help get the message about the unreliability of WPATH across to others.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Stella O’Malley is also Irish.
[4] https://wng.org/roundups/new-transgender-standards-remove-age-limits-1665428818
