Talk:World Professional Association for Transgender Health

Regarding Standards of Care
It would be nice if the article stayed that way with regard to SOCs, and not get changed back again to a US-centric view. In many European Countries, the HBIGDA-SOC are not the SOCs usually used, but local SOCs exist. The HBIGDA-SOC would be a real improvement there, believe me! And I am thinking that maybe it would be a good idea to put SOCs into a seperate article altogether. It is not directly related to surgery, and a seperate article would also provide the opportunity to cover the different standards better. AlexR 23:56 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * Good idea. The part about who Harry Benjamin was and what the HBIGDA does doesn't really fit in this article. It would also be interesting to discuss the trends seen in recent revisions of the SOC. And as you say, in many European countries at least the official care providers have their own protocols that are way behind the HBIGDA SOCs. -- Kimiko 07:22 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Alex and Kimiko. My only problem with that is that the Standards of Care is the proper name of a specific document, so changing that is kind of like saying "Other countries use their own version of the Magna Carta," or "Other religions have their own Ten Commandments," you know?  A Google search returns only one other document using the term Standards of Care that deals with GID, and that it also from the US, by a group called the Health Law Project and was written for the express purpose of rebutting the HBIGDA document.  Can you cite an example of another set of guidlines that uses this title?  Also, it should be noted that standards of care (common noun) is a term used throughout the medical industry for all types of topics, with a special focus on Psychiatry.  So perhaps this could be said in a different way, as the current edit offers readers no additional info, but simply removes clarity from the factual points.  What do you think?  (Also, I'm going to do an HBIGDA page, hopefully today, and I'll move most of it, but this still needs to be worked out first)  Thanks, Paige 12:20 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * You could use protocol (as I did above) to describe other standards than the HBIGDA SOCs. At least, that's what it is called in the Netherlands. Protocol can also refer to anything, just like standards of care (no caps). -- Kimiko 13:54 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * Alex, would you agree with this solution? It sure seems like a good one to me.  Please let us know what you think so I can set up the HBIGDA article and move some of this there, okay?  Thanks, Paige 14:30 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The German Standards of Care are explicitly called "Standards of Care", and as far as I know, other some other European SOCs are also called SOCs. So I'd stick to SOC and call the HBIGDA-SOCs explicitly so. Also, I have encountered the term "Standards of Care" many times when other illnesses were the subject, hearth attacks, for example, or diabetes. Do you want to set up an article specifically about the HBIGDA-SOCs? I'd call it "SOCs for transgender/transsexuals", leaving room for both SOCs about other illnesses in other articles and other SOCs than the HBIGDA for transgender/transsexuals in the same article. Since the Wikipedia is an international project, I think those other Standards would be best put together with the most influential ones. AlexR 15:58 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * Alex and Kimiko, if you have a chance, please check out the changes I made and the new Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association article. Thanks, Paige 14:37 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Hm, I would have put the standards in a seperate article, not under the heading of the HBIGDA. The HBIGDA should explain only the HBIGDA; after all, the standards are not the only thing they do. And, on the other hand, an article about SOCs under that heading would have provided the opportunity saying something about other SOCs. Plus, the information that SOCs for other illnesses exist have nothing whatever to do with the HBIGDA. Also, I am getting fairly annoyed that the paragraph about transgender people who opt for SRS is constantly edited out. Not only transsexuals have surgery, and not all those who have surgery are transsexuals. Editing this information out invaldidates other people's life -- mine, for example -- and is definitely a violation of the NPOV! -- AlexR 17:12 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * No harm was meant. That line simply makes the article confusing.  If on Wikipedia, "A transsexual is a person who establishes a permanent identity with the opposite gender to his or her birth sex," and SRS is "the surgical procedure by which a person's physical appearance and function is changed to that of the opposite sex," then how are non-TG readers supposed to understand a person seeking SRS who isn't a transsexual?  It's confusing.  Either one of those definitions needs to be changed or some explanation should be given.  Your life and your TG-identification is a very specific circumstance which places you as a minority (post-op TG) within a minority (TG), which probably warrants an in-depth discussion, right?  Personally, I would find it much more apealing if you wrote a full paragraph explaining that under whichever article you choose, SRS, TG or TS.  Readers will probably be interested in hearing WHY some choose the indentifiers they choose, don't you think?  However, as it stands now, it only reduces the clarity of the definitions.  My revision wasn't intended to be POV, it was purely 100% editorial.


 * Can you please expound upon that line so it becomes clear to non-TG readers at least? (Please double check the grammar as well.  Themself needs to be plural to match the number of persons and it would be preferable if the independent clause did not begin with also.)


 * As for the HBIGDA-SOC being placed under the HBIGDA article, it was simply for organization. The two terms a very much linked, and since no one has actually provided any facts on the other SOCs, there isn't enough detail for two separate articles yet.  If you could please flesh out your criticism of my "US-centric" focus on the HBIGDA-SOC with some details about other guidlines, protocols or SOC's, instead of just knocking what I wrote, it would solve the problem.


 * I think the line about SRS patients calling themselves TG instead of TS as well as the edits you want about other SOC's are only modifiers of the existing information. Isn't it kind of counterproductive to add modifiers without explaining them or adding any new facts.  We should be expanding these articles, not just watering them down.  By adding the info you keep referring to, you'd be increasing the level of detail, which is the exact opposite of what's happening right now, I think.  Either way, I'm done editing this one because I don't want to make people mad.  Sorry.  Paige 20:04 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Hi Paige! I don't think the line is confusing, and the difference between transsexuals and transgenders can easily be examined from the corrospondung articles. (Although the TS article could, IMO, use a bit of clean-up; maybe I'll do that sometime.) Anyway, my life and being post-op transgender is by no means a special case. Transmen who do not identify as transsexual and who had upper surgery are quite common, not only in Germany (and being a founder of the only German association of transmen, I know many), but also, from what I hear, in other countries, including the US. It is therefore extremely annoying if one keeps reading that surgery=transsexual equation, which simply isn't one. I also know it's more common among transwomen to make that equation, although, from what I can observe, it is by no means as widespread as it used to be. This is not just a modifier, either, but an essential information. And it needs not much further explanation, because, as I said, if people want to know the difference, the articles about TS and TG are only one click away. As for the HBIGDA article, I think it was quite clear from the information already present in the debate that other SOCs exist. Therefore to write an article that makes it impossible to add this information where it belongs looks quite US-centric to me. And no other information about other SOCs were provided yet because it makes sense to write about the HBIGDA-SOCs first, since they are the most widespread ones, and they can very well be used as reference. And I have to admitt that I did not see the need to hurry with information about the German SOCs (which are the ones I know best) because the information is probably not all that relevant to English speaking users, mur merely interesting. The other reason why I only wanted to point out the differences, and for that the HBIGDA-SOCs needed to be written about first. Also, other standards are not only used in Germany, not even predominantly. In fact, the only country I know where the pure and plain HBIGDA-SOCs are used regulary are the USA, in all other countries I know the guidelines or local SOCs differ. As for any grammar or spelling mistakes, I apologise. Not only is English not my first language, for some reason I usually write in the middle of the night. -- AlexR 20:31 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I forgot to add: It was not my intention to keep you or anybody from working at this articles. It is just that I have had the transsexual vs. transgender debate far, far too many times - without ever having seen the point in it in the first place. By now, that may make my reactions more brusque that necessary in that particular stuation. No offense was indented. AlexR 07:42 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * I agree with Alex that it would be better to put the SOCs (HBIGDA or other) on their own page. Also, SOCs not only specify standards for SRS as stated at the beginning of the article, but also for HRT, RLT and psychotherapy, as explained further down. -- Kimiko 20:38 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * The distinction between TS and TG does not need to be discussed here as it is already covered in the Transgender article (linked also from Transsexual). Links to (one of) those articles would be enough. However, discussion of whether the SOCs should provide rules for those who don't want to go all the way (only hormones, or only one type of surgery) is appropriate here (or better yet, the SOCs article once that material is moved). -- Kimiko 20:48 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Recently released court documents
Not sure if this is/can become relevant. Recent article in The Economist:

"Court documents recently released as part of the discovery process in a case involving youth gender medicine in Alabama reveal that wpath’s claim was built on shaky foundations. The documents show that the organisation’s leaders interfered with the production of systematic reviews that it had commissioned from the Johns Hopkins University Evidence-Based Practice Centre (epc) in 2018. From early on in the contract negotiations, wpath expressed a desire to control the results of the Hopkins team’s work."

https://www.economist.com/united-states/2024/06/27/research-into-trans-medicine-has-been-manipulated 77.183.21.16 (talk) 14:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)