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.
Where does it say that suicides are "no big deal"? The central claim that it's refuting is this:
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 article says suicides are tragedies, but also refutes the claim about a surge in suicides.
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.
Is it sufficiently refuted in your mind?