I’m not sure why the hostility? I’ve read the source, and you either didn’t read it or misunderstood it. Nowhere does it say what you’re claiming it says, you’re welcome to disprove that with quotes.

For anybody else reading this, if you doubt that the above commenter misunderstood the article, you can just read it. It’s not very long.

The entire premise in the article of denying any kind of gender-affirming treatment is what I was responding to

What? Can you quote any part of the article that tries to deny “any kind of gender-affirming treatment”? Here is the central claim that they’re refuting:

The central claim, made on X (formerly known as Twitter), is that there has been a large rise in suicide by current and recent patients of the Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) service at the Tavistock since an earlier restriction of puberty-blocking drugs that followed a High Court decision in a case (Bell v Tavistock) in December 2020. The rise is described as a “surge” in suicides and “an explosion”, indicating a substantial and, by implication, unequivocal increase. There are multiple references to children dying in future because they are unable to access puberty-blocking drugs.

Just refer to people the way they want to be referred to and respect their wishes. Isn’t that what we all want?

Can you quote any part of the article that conflicts with this statement?

That’s not at odds with the article. The article refutes a claim that there was a surge in suicides due to inability to access puberty blockers. It doesn’t touch on broader subjects like being called what you’d like.

This is the sort of useful conversation I was looking to have. I think we’re in agreement. In another comment, I wrote this:

WPATH should clean house and purge all pedophiles, retract SOC 8, publish an apology, and write a new version that doesn’t have input from known pedophiles.

Which might not be how you would phrase it, but largely agrees with:

If that’s the case then I think most sane people would agree they should not consult with them anymore, and revisit any influence they might have had on policy.

How about this? “WPATH removed lower age limits in SOC8 while consulting with child castration fetishists”

A second click will bring you here:

https://reduxx.info/top-trans-medical-association-collaborated-with-castration-child-abuse-fetishists/

You should really read it, it has a lot of details. In particular, it links to this page:

https://archive.ph/Ea36u

Where the user kristoff solicits donations and types this:

Donations may be made through PayPal using this email address:

wyrmwyvern@live.com

Or you may send check, money order, or discretely wrapped cash by snail mail to:

Wyrm Wyvern, Inc.

PO Box 68098

Minneapolis, MN, 55418-8098

USA

You can go here to search for the file number 699082500046 to find Wyrm Wyvern, Inc., with this info:

Krister H Willette

2018 5th St NE

Minneapolis, MN 55418–4406

USA

Who is one of the academics named in the reduxx exposé, and who has published research directly referencing the Eunuch Archives. A quote from that article shows that these academics are actively involved in the community:

A second, but larger, online survey that Wassersug and Johnson (2007) posted

So we have the user kristoff claiming widely on eunuch.org that he is Krister H. Willette, and we have Krister H. Willette publishing research that shows intimate, active knowledge of eunuch.org along with his co-authors. To doubt that the user kristoff is Krister H. Willette, you would have to believe that Krister H. Willette had his identity stolen by the user kristoff, had knowledge of this for decades, and has done nothing about it. It is far more believable that they are the same person.

You might find it weird, but experts in their fields often conduct speeches on their area of expertise.

Are you talking about Johnson’s talk at CSUC? If so, it’s not about the talk itself, it’s that by mentioning the talk, the user revealed that he is Thomas W. Johnson, as the reduxx article points out. To doubt this, you again have to believe that the academic is intimately familiar with eunuch.org, sees someone widely claiming to be him, and does nothing about it. That’s not a rational position to take.

have they been charged with anything

This is revolting behavior, but likely not illegal. IANAL, but AFAIK sexual stories involving children generally aren’t considered illegal in the US. That’s not the right question to be asking though. Do you think WPATH should be welcoming pedophiles into its ranks, even if they “keep it legal”? I, and most other people, would say “hell no”.

EDIT: You made me go and create an account. If you doubt any of this, just go and look for yourself, he’s not trying to hide it. He repeatedly signs his messages as “krister”, has access to the PO Box mentioned above, and has inside knowledge of WPATH happenings.

Here’s another link where “Jesus” claims to be Thomas W. Johnson:

https://archive.ph/O48mL#selection-725.0-729.64

If you have any questions about the survey and its use or purposes, feel free to contact Prof. Thomas W. Johnson (TWJ@sonic.net). I will be happy to answer any questions that you might have.

Thank you.

Tom Johnson

I do like socks, but I’m no puppet. I’m interested in discussion about this article because it looks legitimate, which is horrifying. If you’re able to disprove the claims, that would be a relief.

The site makes it very easy to click through to the proof. For example, here’s kristoff at the eunuch archives claiming that he and two other members presented at a WPATH conference:

You’re welcome. The WPATH conference has been interesting. Jesus, eunuchunique, and I all presented papers at the conference this AM. More later.

Looking at the symposium guide from WPATH, you can see the people that presented:

TRACK B Panel Presentations:

Identity development. Eunuchs then and now. Organizer and Chair: Thomas W. Johnson. OAK AMPHITHEATRE

Eunuchs: Seeking voluntary castration. Richard J. Wassersug, PhD.

Eunuchs: Personality and sexuality. Thomas W. Johnson, PhD.

Eunuchs: Body integrity identity disorder and castration. Krister Willette, PhD.

Eunuchs: An historical perspective. Shaun Tougher, PhD.

Case study of a transition from “male to not-male” or “male to eunuch” (MtE). Randall D. Ehrbar, PsyD.

I don’t have any reason to doubt the rest of reduxx’s work in tying down the three usernames mentioned above to which of those 5 people presented, but here’s part of it if you’d like to look into this further:

But according to posts made to the forum in March and April, Johnson let his identity slip and invited site members to partake in an academic survey on “childhood experiences, castration desire and sexual history,” as well as watch him give a talk at CSUC via Zoom.

To me, the more important thing isn’t exact identities, but the fact that WPATH consulted with multiple child castration fetishists. That’s horrendous, and taints the entire organization’s work. As I said in another comment, this is the sort of thing that can turn back the clock on trans rights. Your average person will hear about this and think “trans = pedos”. WPATH badly needs to clean house.

Your assumption doesn’t really capture the article. It’s not about a single pedophile, it’s about rot within WPATH, which might turn back the clock on trans rights.

To summarize, WPATH published a new standard of care that removed lower age limits. It did this while consulting with at least one child castration fetishist, which is a huge and disgusting conflict of interest. WPATH should clean house and purge all pedophiles, retract SOC 8, publish an apology, and write a new version that doesn’t have input from known pedophiles.

Aside from the pedophilia angle, the eunuch chapter was done while consulting with said eunuch fetishists. If WPATH is just publishing fetish material, maybe Ray Blanchard is right and trans people are just AGPs, trans women are just men in dresses, etc, etc. It’s a bad look.

I don’t think it’s a good idea to ignore this. This is the sort of thing that can strongly influence public opinion.