Thread by @JLCederblom

When people suggest that medical transition would be fine if only people followed the WPATH Standards of Care (which are not actually standards of care) they usually neglect to mention that no one actually follows them, not even WPATH members.

The author of the usual example to show how young they're pushing surgical transition is a WPATH member, in fact on its board of directors. Even as vague as the "standards" are, it's clear to see she does not follow them.

Sometimes I bring up this study when the "1 year of hormones" nonsense is brougt up, since it has minors going from first visit to surgery in a few months - and both authors are WPATH members. They don't care about the so called standards.

There's a paper called "Age is just a number" about WPATH-affiliated surgeons attitudes towards vaginoplasty in minors. 11 did, 9 did not. Yes, that is the real name of the paper. And they went as young as 15.

A majority did not follow their own standards.

I recently read a semi-religious paper written by someone who may or may not actually be a large number of monkeys with an equally large number of typewriters. Published in the WPATH journal, by a WPATH member.

And these are the people we are supposed to look to?

The reality of the matter is that the WPATH standards are standards only in name, and they serve primarily to add a thin layer of credibility to what is actually not a scientific, evidence-based treatment of gender dysphoria at all.

Following them is gambling with your patient.

So it makes perfect sense for just about everyone to not follow them. They're very much like "trans" itself, in that everyone uses the same word but with a unique meaning to that individual.

But everyone has to pay lip service as well, because without them, there is nothing. So we end up with an organization where the members don't follow their own guidance, but everyone swears by them. It's bizarre to say the least.