thank you for your much needed reporting. nz is so deep in this crap and the general public so sheep like i worry it will be an extremely long slow return to sanity.
2.4million in budget 2022 for intersex children and young people. This population isn’t ‘trans’ or rainbow it’s 40plus diagnoses and many people with them deeply resent being used as an example of there being a ‘third sex’ (Carpenter 2022)
2.3 million for gender affirming care in primary health - GPs. Amount based on the total population size of LGBT - another example of trans being propped up by homo and bisexuals.
FYI. This is what is happening in the land of the Dutch Protocol where the global roll out of GAC started. Bernard Lane is crucial in his ongoing exposure: https://www.genderclinicnews.com/p/under-pressure
Excellent summary! I had no idea that PATHA is even more controversial as WPATH. I've learned a lot from what you wrote here. I will share with Maori women and other NZ citizens I know here in Australia.
Excellent summary. I shall link to it in the piece I'll be publishing soon, which is a roundup of events in NZ, rather than in-depth about this specifically.
I can't thank you enough! This is the best, most succinct list of widely listed problems with "gender affirming care."
I have been struggling for years now to write succinct brochures to hand out locally, and for people to print up from online, that quickly explain to the average lay person what is wrong with GAC, and other brochures listing the problems with other aspects of gender identity ideology (which I also refer to as "biophobia: an irrational fear of nature, including of one's own biological sex.")
There are so many lengthy gender-critical academic articles, and articles on substack, but that aren't being seen by the general public, to raise consciousness there. In the US, conservatives are doing a good job of getting their critiques into the public eye, but of course, within their conservative framework, not a progressive or feminist one.
I would love to see this list of criticisms of GAC and gender identity ideology in a bullet pointed or numbered list in a brochure with citations. Would you be interested to write this, or may I take what you've written and put it in a draft brochure, and send it to you to collaborate on a finished product? Perhaps one of several gender-critical brochures on topics about gender identity.
In addition to using brochures to give to the general public, it would be helpful to have them to hand to doctors and nurses, with lists of helpful GC websites and substacks.
These would also be handy for finding like-minded people in one's city, to then go to school board and city council meetings to speak up on these issues together.
I will start a draft, using your well written list, for your thoughts and feedback. May I send it to you?
Thanks! That was quite a slapdash list but glad it worked. Aren't there 1000s of GC people in California? Meeting, talking etc? I like the idea of biophobia btw
You're welcome! I only wish there were thousands of us meeting and talking. There is a group in the central Bay Area (San Fran/Oakland) that may have 30 - 50, I'm guessing, and maybe a hundred or more on their emaillist, again. Guessing. There are a handful in Southern California. We really are not organized otherwise, mostly because of fear of coming out on this issue. I've tried some. I'm hoping having brochures to hand out will be an opinion to my talking with and finding like-minded women.
One of my frustrations with substack is that there seems to be no way to connect one on one with authors or comments privately, without dxooising our email addresses. Or is there a way, that I don't now about, that I can email you or contact you privately, pls? With my draft?
I think one of the major causes of this horrible situation is that some absolutely junk research got published in actual, half-credible scientific journals, so the homophobes who are busy mutilating gay kids genuinely could point to this study or that study and it all looked “scientific”.
But how? How could credible academic journals publish this? In other words, where did the process of peer review fail?
And my guess is: it’s probably a surprisingly small number of people who cite each others papers to provide an illusion of credibility, and a surprisingly small number of people who get onto the editorial board of a journal and throw their weight around.
It’s the downside of the saying “Never doubt that a small number of dedicated people can change the world, indeed it’s the only thing that ever has”.
Yes, disturbing how easily people are swayed by thinking if a journal says something science-y in its title it's credible. We had an MP quote a blog op piece in the Scientific American as a credible source. And the PM's chief science advisor pointing to Wikipedia to explain how sex is not binary.
oh, it’s endemic across any article on this topic, because the objective of publication is “pure trans joy”, not reality and science. Anything published by Jack Turban. Colin Wright has been excellent at exposing this.
thank you for your much needed reporting. nz is so deep in this crap and the general public so sheep like i worry it will be an extremely long slow return to sanity.
Washington Post has now also published an opinion piece on the WPATH files: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/03/08/transgender-medicine-report-evidence/
The Observer just published the formidable Hannah Barnes' talking on the WPATH files: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/09/disturbing-leaks-from-us-gender-group-wpath-ring-alarm-bells-in-nhs?
2.4million in budget 2022 for intersex children and young people. This population isn’t ‘trans’ or rainbow it’s 40plus diagnoses and many people with them deeply resent being used as an example of there being a ‘third sex’ (Carpenter 2022)
2.3 million for gender affirming care in primary health - GPs. Amount based on the total population size of LGBT - another example of trans being propped up by homo and bisexuals.
This is interesting! Where did you get the info re the amount being based on entire LGBT population. So weird
FYI. This is what is happening in the land of the Dutch Protocol where the global roll out of GAC started. Bernard Lane is crucial in his ongoing exposure: https://www.genderclinicnews.com/p/under-pressure
Thank you!
Excellent summary! I had no idea that PATHA is even more controversial as WPATH. I've learned a lot from what you wrote here. I will share with Maori women and other NZ citizens I know here in Australia.
Fantastic, thank you!
Excellent summary. I shall link to it in the piece I'll be publishing soon, which is a roundup of events in NZ, rather than in-depth about this specifically.
I can't thank you enough! This is the best, most succinct list of widely listed problems with "gender affirming care."
I have been struggling for years now to write succinct brochures to hand out locally, and for people to print up from online, that quickly explain to the average lay person what is wrong with GAC, and other brochures listing the problems with other aspects of gender identity ideology (which I also refer to as "biophobia: an irrational fear of nature, including of one's own biological sex.")
There are so many lengthy gender-critical academic articles, and articles on substack, but that aren't being seen by the general public, to raise consciousness there. In the US, conservatives are doing a good job of getting their critiques into the public eye, but of course, within their conservative framework, not a progressive or feminist one.
I would love to see this list of criticisms of GAC and gender identity ideology in a bullet pointed or numbered list in a brochure with citations. Would you be interested to write this, or may I take what you've written and put it in a draft brochure, and send it to you to collaborate on a finished product? Perhaps one of several gender-critical brochures on topics about gender identity.
In addition to using brochures to give to the general public, it would be helpful to have them to hand to doctors and nurses, with lists of helpful GC websites and substacks.
These would also be handy for finding like-minded people in one's city, to then go to school board and city council meetings to speak up on these issues together.
I will start a draft, using your well written list, for your thoughts and feedback. May I send it to you?
Thanks! That was quite a slapdash list but glad it worked. Aren't there 1000s of GC people in California? Meeting, talking etc? I like the idea of biophobia btw
You're welcome! I only wish there were thousands of us meeting and talking. There is a group in the central Bay Area (San Fran/Oakland) that may have 30 - 50, I'm guessing, and maybe a hundred or more on their emaillist, again. Guessing. There are a handful in Southern California. We really are not organized otherwise, mostly because of fear of coming out on this issue. I've tried some. I'm hoping having brochures to hand out will be an opinion to my talking with and finding like-minded women.
One of my frustrations with substack is that there seems to be no way to connect one on one with authors or comments privately, without dxooising our email addresses. Or is there a way, that I don't now about, that I can email you or contact you privately, pls? With my draft?
Somewhere on your screen, top right on mine is a message bubble. You should be able to message me there.
Great work
I think one of the major causes of this horrible situation is that some absolutely junk research got published in actual, half-credible scientific journals, so the homophobes who are busy mutilating gay kids genuinely could point to this study or that study and it all looked “scientific”.
But how? How could credible academic journals publish this? In other words, where did the process of peer review fail?
And my guess is: it’s probably a surprisingly small number of people who cite each others papers to provide an illusion of credibility, and a surprisingly small number of people who get onto the editorial board of a journal and throw their weight around.
It’s the downside of the saying “Never doubt that a small number of dedicated people can change the world, indeed it’s the only thing that ever has”.
Yes, disturbing how easily people are swayed by thinking if a journal says something science-y in its title it's credible. We had an MP quote a blog op piece in the Scientific American as a credible source. And the PM's chief science advisor pointing to Wikipedia to explain how sex is not binary.
Yes! The 2015 US Transgender Discrimination Survey would be perhaps the main flakey study that took wings. Perhaps that's the one you had in mind.
oh, it’s endemic across any article on this topic, because the objective of publication is “pure trans joy”, not reality and science. Anything published by Jack Turban. Colin Wright has been excellent at exposing this.
Yes! Colin Wright and Emma Hilton both excellent on clear explanation of biology.