Yvonne van Dongen
Veteran NZ journo incredulous gender ideology escaped the lab. Won’t rest until reality makes a comeback.
The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) has walked back support of their own “Standards of Care, Version 8.”
In a federal court over the summer, WPATH admitted it is not the definitive standard of care that it is conventionally treated as. In their own words, they said they have merely been presenting SOC-8 as their free-speech opinion: a source to reference in a field which they now characterize as “medical and scientific uncertainty”.
Moreover they told the court that clinicians and systems who adhere to it – and treat it as the status quo – will “assume independent responsibility”. In other words buyer beware.
This is huge.
For years their standards of care were the unofficial gold standards for gender dysphoric minors and adults for the major medical institutions, hospitals, and clinics of the United States. Anyone who expressed doubt risked their career.
This is despite several reviews around the world (including the UK Cass review) concluding that the evidence base for the blockers, cross sex hormones, and surgeries in minors was woefully inadequate.
The Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine’s detailed reading of the motion (the document is publicly available) break it down like this:
- WPATH now acknowledges two sides to the scientific debate over care for gender-dysphoric youth: the gender-affirming model it promotes, and the Cass Review/Cass-aligned approaches that restrict or ban puberty blockers and hormones for minors.
- It describes paediatric transgender medicine as marked by medical and scientific uncertainty.
- It frames SOC-8 recommendations as an expression of WPATH’s free speech rather than an established standard of care.
- WPATH argues that physicians and organizations relying on SOC-8 as the standard take on all the liabilities and responsibility for that reliance.
In New Zealand the Professional Association of Transgender Health (PATHA) is independent of WPATH but affliliated through professional networks, joint advocacy, and alignment on clinical standards.
Given that PATHA’s guidelines for gender-affirming healthcare explicitly align with or reference WPATH Standards of Care Version 8, what does this change in direction mean for clinicians and medical organisations in this country?
Though nothing has appeared on the PATHA website about this latest revelation, it seems to me that local guidelines should be updated to reflect this more cautious framing. I have sent an email enquiry to PATHA regarding this new information. I do NOT expect a reply. It’s simply an old journalistic habit indicating outsiders are aware of changes they might like to respond to.
This article was originally published on the author’s Substack.
