https://x.com/shellenberger/status/1764799914918490287
THE WPATH FILES
— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) March 4, 2024
Advocates of gender-affirming care say it’s evidence-based.
But now, newly released internal files from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) prove that the practice of transgender medicine is neither scientific nor medical.
American… pic.twitter.com/mcJ2E7TezW
https://x.com/shellenberger/status/1764799914918490287
It's also here
https://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/wpath-files
and on Shellenbergers substack
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
yeah but what is his source and did anyone verify this information and it's probably just transphobic bigots who want trans people to not exist
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
This but unununununununironically
We need trans hedgehogs! Trans hedgehogs belong here! We love trans hedgehogs!
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Do you have a source on that?
Source?
A source. I need a source.
Sorry, I mean I need a source that explicitly states your argument. This is just tangential to the discussion.
No, you can't make inferences and observations from the sources you've gathered. Any additional comments from you MUST be a subset of the information from the sources you've gathered.
You can't make normative statements from empirical evidence.
Do you have a degree in that field?
A college degree? In that field?
Then your arguments are invalid.
No, it doesn't matter how close those data points are correlated. Correlation does not equal causation.
Correlation does not equal causation.
CORRELATION. DOES. NOT. EQUAL. CAUSATION.
You still haven't provided me a valid source yet.
Nope, still haven't.
I just looked through all 308 pages of your user history, figures I'm debating a JK Rowling supporter. A TERF.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
There's no mention of bad faith in there, this pasta is very outdated
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Even if it is true, it was still posted in bad faith, and was not fact-checked, peer-reviewed, scientific expert-approved, so this instantly invalidates it, chud.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
some are video recordings of the WPATH meetings lol
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Who are you going to believe, your lying eyes or 9001 scientists?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
It's this 260-page pdf on squarespace by one person. @TheOverSeether is really hesitant about it.
" Trump for prison "
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Something something bad faith argument or whatever
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Avast, ye scurvy cur! Yer comment be walkin' the plank for forgettin' to include
trump for prison! We be helpin' ye, right enough - we'll ne'er let ye post or comment anythin' that doesn't be expressin' yer love an' acceptance o' minorities! Heave to an' resubmit yer comment withtrump for prisonincluded, or it'll be the deep six for ye, savvy? This be an automated message; if ye need help, ye can message us 'ere. Arrr!Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context