CONTENT NOTICE: This article contains graphic mention of child sexual abuse and child physical abuse. Reader discretion is appreciated. Reduxx has learned that a Professor Emeritus at California State University and a top consultant to the world’s leading transgender health authority directly contributed to an erotic story featuring themes of the graphic mutilation and sexual […]
They did this while consulting with child castration fetishists.
Based on the article provided, it appears to be true. 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.
Having said that, gender-affirming care has been shown to be a net positive to individuals and society as a whole, so I’m not sure if you’re then trying to go the next step and discredit that in general as a result
of this, because that’s how the article reads and is a separate discussion entirely.
I’m not seeking to disprove anything in this article, merely understand what kind of discussion you want to have about it.
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.
That single statement contains 1 claim:
WPATH removed lower age limits in SOC8.
This is true.
It also contains another claim:
They did this while consulting with child castration fetishists.
Based on the article provided, it appears to be true. 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.
Having said that, gender-affirming care has been shown to be a net positive to individuals and society as a whole, so I’m not sure if you’re then trying to go the next step and discredit that in general as a result of this, because that’s how the article reads and is a separate discussion entirely.
I’m not seeking to disprove anything in this article, merely understand what kind of discussion you want to have about it.
This is the sort of useful conversation I was looking to have. I think we’re in agreement. In another comment, I wrote this:
Which might not be how you would phrase it, but largely agrees with: