A draft copy of the WPATH Standards of Care, 8th edition, is now open for public comments through Thursday, December 16th at 11:59 pm Eastern Time. It’s been a rough four-year process to get this far and the chapter is certainly not completely as the drafting committee would like to have it, but this is what we hope will fly with all of the commentators. A description of the entire arcane process is on the WPATH site at: https://www.wpath.org/soc8.

The eunuch chapter is linked at

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/LK7T2MZ

(https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/LK7T2MZ)

That page gives instructions for making comments as well as a link to a PDF copy of the entire chapter. We expect that there will be a number of negative comments from members of the public. Some positive responses would certainly be appreciated as we will be expected to take all comments into account for the final version, which is supposed to be finalized by December 31.

If you would prefer not to make comments on the WPATH site, please feel free to make them on this thread. The members of the committee would appreciate any feedback that we can receive.

A long time coming...

In the words of CeCe Peniston... FINALLY!!! (https://youtu.be/xk8mm1Qmt-Y)

Thank you so much, Jesus. The draft chapter on eunuchs is excellent. The chapter on nonbinary people is also great and applicable to many of us. So good to see progress on access to healthcare.

The lack of comments seems strange with how much interest there was in getting this developed and moved forward.

The lack of public comments while seemingly strange, demonstrates both the lack of trust in the system as well as a demonstration as to how many are actually serious towards becoming eunuch rather than those who only fantasize of becoming eunuch.

I myself had to go to great lengths in the 90's in order to become nullified as a result of no standards of treatment and then became rather feminine in presentation to society in order to receive proper health care. Perhaps a more informed society will eventually result as the WPATH standards become more enlightening for healthcare providers and society as a whole.

Begoneboy (imported) wrote: Sat Dec 04, 2021 12:11 pm The lack of public comments while seemingly strange, demonstrates both the lack of trust in the system as well as a demonstration as to how many are actually serious towards becoming eunuch rather than those who only fantasize of becoming eunuch.

I was going to say something similar... That it's a difference between those who will do it vs. those who never will. Of course folks like you and I have known for a very long time that sites and apps related to this subject are 99%+ fantasy, 1% or so reality.

Still, I hope all who have navigated to a successful castration of nullification, or are seriously desiring it, will respond to the appeal on the WPATH site for public comments.

Losethem (imported) wrote: Sat Dec 04, 2021 3:09 pm Still, I hope all who have navigated to a successful castration of nullification, or are seriously desiring it, will respond to the appeal on the WPATH site for public comments.

I am delighted with the work of the WPATH Standards Commission. Many thanks!

I'm absolutely delighted about this progress.

My own situation (as I have written about ad nauseam) is of a medical need (torsions, pathology) plus a preference over how to deal with that need (orchidectomy + TRT). My choice of treatment has caused massive problems with the UK medical establishment, who essentially see anything affecting fertility as completely crazy, no matter how life-threatening the situation. I have been referred to a UK trans clinic on the grounds that "they treat people who don't have a reason", in spite of the fact I wouldn't consider myself to be particularly trans...

What I mean by that is that I feel at home under the eunuch banner (and I don't see anything inherently wrong standing under the trans banner either, if I am wanted), but I was AMAB and essentially my mode is overwhelmingly masculine now and going forward. If detesticulation necessitates the adoption of a particular gender outside the binary then I guess how it will be detected in me would be broadly indistinguishable from masculinity, but I don't balk at being grouped with such noble people.

For this reason, the new non-binary and eunuch chapters in the SOC are great news for a lot of confrères for whom this is a gender and dysphoria issue (as opposed to a body physically disintegrating issue), but are relevant to me in particular in a more roundabout way, in that they support the concept of bodily autonomy and assert the validity of the fight for access to surgical options.

That said, I can still sense a lot of gatekeeping. There is an emphasis on assessing and interviewing, whereas I am a libertarian in this, and would gladly throw millions of confused people under the bus to help even just one true philosopher who knows himself. I see this edition as a stepping stone towards a future where we can campaign for a world where doctors must obey and have no right to demand reasons or withhold surgery and medication.

I've been reading on reddit, and this surprised me, trans folks and asexuals, and non binary people angry that they want to add MtE standards of care, stating that it delegitimizes their movements. Obviously not everyone feels this way but I was still surprised and saddened.

Poor_pup_no_balls (imported) wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 8:56 pm I've been reading on reddit, and this surprised me, trans folks and asexuals, and non binary people angry that they want to add MtE standards of care, stating that it delegitimizes their movements. Obviously not everyone feels this way but I was still surprised and saddened.

Do they give any rationale for that view? --- If they can be upset so easily they clearly need to think twice about what legitimacy is, how it is established, and so forth.

I suspect a lot of people are trapped in the "pick me!" camp of auditioning for a role at the top table of a system of othering designed to create exploitable minorities. Respectability politics centring the sensitivities of people in power is foolish, as even when groups get added to the charmed circle, they are always under threat of being turned on.

The only secure position is total autonomy, and a culture of respect for people's identities in their infinite diversity. Whilst alliances can be good for survival and shared information and support, "lumping and splitting" is essentially a vote for conflict where there need be none.