The ICGP recently took down their trans guidelines and just the other day put a revised version back up. Let's see what changes have been made...
The first significant change is reworking the evidence introduction. That makes sense since it had nothing to do with what was being presented in the document, however the new version makes no sense either as there is only a single place where it is brought up. 
The main thing which has been reworked all over is references to other organizations. The overt surrender of medical principles to completely unqualified advocacy groups has been scaled back.
They also got rid of the "This guide provides ... a good understanding of these issues", suggesting someone actually realized this mess of a document made things even more confusing.
Barely worth mentioning is the dozen or so typos corrected, in this example an obvious one that would have been picked up had a single competent human being actually proof read the original.
The distancing from TENI in particular makes a lot of sense, including removing one of the authors (of TENI) calling themselves "transgender experts".
It appears they have also managed to correctly cite their own material. Although I agree with the original error, where the "care" they offer is in need of treatment itself.
The most substantial changes made are in regards to medical treatment. The structure has been reordered and language regarding reversibility changed. The new version has some new and interesting formatting errors, suggesting the proof reading on new material is still terrible.
The mention of the evidence base regarding "the long-term effects of hormone and puberty blockers" is interesting. I count three errors in that paragraph, and I'm not sure why this wasn't spotted. Either way, that they mention how terrible the evidence is was probably forced.
Some of the more activist language was reworked, but other parts were simply removed - like this plea for urgency. It would be interesting to hear their rationale for what to keep, what to rework and what to remove.
One thing that struck me about the original document was the completely incoherent definitions. Nothing of that was changed, no actual evidence was added, it's essentially the same nonsense with slightly more cautious wording.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
